India: Savage men rob and ravage woman in Manipur

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-124-2012

Send an Appeal Letter

6 July 2012
------------------------------------------------------
INDIA: Savage men rob and ravage woman in Manipur – two IRB officers and a Sub-Inspector of Police implicated

ISSUES: Violence against women; inhuman and degrading treatment; impunity; police negligence; human rights defenders; women's rights; sexual violence
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from Rongmei Lu Phuam (RLP) concerning the robbery and horrific gang rape of 40-year-old Phool Maya (name changed) on 22 March 2012 by four men, two of whom are Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) officers. It is possible the incident was masterminded by a fifth man, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr Tiken Singh, who also likely supplied the small firearm used in the assault. Violence against women, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and a culture of impunity militate against the construction of a humane society.

To combat lawlessness requires the wholehearted and practical support of civil society and pressure on the government to create change. We urge you to write in to appeal to the relevant authorities today requesting for action to be taken against the men responsible for these crimes. By so doing, you express solidarity with the downtrodden in the India, trust in the judiciary to prevent and punish crime and faith that, someday, rule of law, democracy and peace may prevail in the Indian Republic.

CASE NARRATIVE:

An investigation by the Rongmei Lu Phuam (RLP) revealed the following facts.

Phool Maya, 40-year-old mother of four, was being driven by her brother-in-law in a truck from Leimatak towards Imphal around 3pm on 22 March 2012 to sell 40 kilograms of homegrown Umorok (chilli). Maya needed the money to pay for her children's schooling fees, and because vehicles travelled infrequently between Imphal and Leimatak and charged exorbitant fees, she took advantage of her brother-in-law's trip to Imphal to sell the chillies. When the six-truck convoy stopped at the Khwairakpan petrol station at Keinou Bazaar to refuel, four men, two IRB servicemen and two civilians, alighted from a silver car and assaulted Sathailung Kamei. One of the assailants was carrying a gun. Two Nokia mobiles, approximately Rs. 6500 in cash and the 40 kilograms of Umorok worth about Rs. 32,000 were forcibly taken from Maya, who was then forced to alight from the truck. She was overpowered, blindfolded and carried away in the front seat of the car to an isolated spot near Langpok Kakyai Primary School.

Despite pleading piteously with the men that she was old enough to be their mother and that it was prohibited for the Meitei to touch a woman during her menstrual period, one of the perpetrators retorted that it did not matter; he did not fear God and he would kill and dump her in a pond. Maya was held down, stripped and raped at gunpoint by all four men. After satisfying their lust, the men dropped Maya at Irom Meijarao Mamang Leikai near Young Union Club, where her relatives later found her.

Maya identified the perpetrators as Chungkham Ibomcha alias Iga Singh (Havaldar No. 11C 2007855, 1st Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) now posted at Seri Project Site, Sangaipat), Kshetrimayum Kennedy alias Dungi, Rifleman No. 0920001242 of the 1st IRB), Laikhuram Rojit Singh and Salam Bijen Singh. She confirmed their identities by daringly requesting the culprits return the 40 kilograms of Umorok, and matched their voices with the voices she had heard in the dark when she was taken and gang raped. On the same day (22 March), Maya was medically examined at the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) in Imphal and at around 3pm that afternoon she registered a criminal case against the perpetrators before the Officer-in-Charge of Bishnupur Police Station, First Information Report (FIR) No. 32(3)2012 Bishnupur Police Station U/S 326/384/376/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 25 (1-C) Arms Act, for investigation.

Although only four men had been present at the time of the assault, abduction and gang rape, the perpetrators communicated with a fifth man by mobile. The caller was addressed "Sir Tiken" and reported to as if he had masterminded the entire incident. It came to light during the investigation that the pistol and magazine recovered from one of the culprits belong to a certain Sub-Inspector Tiken Singh. S.I. Tiken Singh of Bishnupur District Commando Unit must therefore also be made to bear responsibility for his involvement in the crime and be thoroughly investigated for the illegal and irresponsible distribution of arms. Although this concrete link was established through the discovery of the provenance of the pistol and despite repeated urging from the Joint Action Committee, S.I. Tiken Singh has not been arrested or suspended from active service.

The five perpetrators named are influential figures well-acquainted with high ranking police personnel at the Bishnupur Police Station. They tried to stifle news of the matter at the police station the same day the FIR was registered. Nevertheless, the victim and her advocates succeeded in the conduct of a Test Identification Parade and to get Maya's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These two procedures are essential to the investigation and prosecution of this terrible crime against a helpless, unarmed village woman, whose efforts to file a charge sheet before a court were fraught with interminable delays and excuses by the police.

A report has been submitted to the Director General of Police of Manipuron 9 April 2012 to request his urgent assistance in investigating this matter and to guide and support the efforts of the Officer-in-Charge of Bishnupur Police Station and the Investigating Officer of FIR No. 32(3) 2012 Bishnupur Police Station U/S 326/384/376/34 IPC and 25(1-C) Arms Act. The immediate suspension and arrest of S.I Tiken Singh and the other four perpetrators has also been requested. This report was forwarded also to the Honourable Minister (Home), Manipur and the Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur District, Manipur. A separate letter has also been sent to the Vice-Chairperson of the National Commission on Minorities in New Delhi by the Rongmei Lu Phuam (RLP) and Women of Manipur State on 9 May 2012 recounting the entire incident and requesting the intervention of the authorities.

Previously, Maya depended on the labour-intensive cultivation of chillies in small garden plots and the sale of such in Imphal and Bishnupur to pay for her children's tuition fees. She is the sole breadwinner for her family and forced to travel alone because her husband has a heart condition and was handicapped in a traffic accident some years ago. Maya's physical and psychological injury from the abduction and gang rape affects her ability to work and exacerbates the pre-existing burden to financially provide for her family. Perhaps the greatest impediment to her returning to work is the constant fear of (lethal) retaliatory attacks by the perpetrators, who are in possession of firearms and have not been arrested yet. Maya's husband needs to go for reconstructive surgery at RIMS to restore the use of his right hand, but Maya has no means to pay for the expensive medical procedure, and the local authorities have been slow to provide any sort of assistance to the family. In the meanwhile, Maya's children have been pulled out of school because she has been unable to pay for their schooling and may also be targeted by the men who had victimised their mother.

Yet Maya has made it clear to the police, the perpetrators and the public that she will not accept financial settlement outside court. She is a passionate advocate of women's rights, deeply concerned about the lack of protection of females in the community and, having been personally abused, and believes the only manner in which such a wrong can begin to be addressed is for legal proceedings and punitive action to be brought against the offenders. She believes the perpetrators should be punished to the severest extent of the law, and should serve as an example of all who would attempt in the future such outrageous violence against women.

Inaction condones and, in such cases, has the same criminal consequence as complicity, particularly where the provincial authorities have a moral and legal responsibility to help. The authorities have not done enough to bring justice to the victim and her family. They have been slow to publicly express their condemnation, thoroughly investigate the matter, punish those responsible and render practical assistance to Maya and her family. It is this apathy that has led to Maya's children also becoming victims as a direct consequence of the attack on their mother. If Maya is unable to work, her husband will continue to be incapacitated and her children will not be able to attend school and seek better jobs in the future. This is a vicious cycle that the government, possessed of the resource and the moral and legal mandate, should seek to disrupt.

Without timely intervention from the local and central authorities, the people of Manipur, particularly the most vulnerable segments of society – women, children the elderly, the widowed, the illiterate and members of minority groups – face, for the foreseeable future, continued abuse of their freedoms and physical person and no likelihood for justice to be served to those acting with complete impunity.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Statistically, women make up a significant percentage of any population. While many local and international laws have been passed to ensure their legal, constitutional and human rights are protected, excruciatingly few practical safeguards exist for this physically and economically vulnerable sector of Indian society. The case described above is just one instance in which physical and psychological trauma has been inflicted on a woman and her family's financial survival severely jeopardised by the criminal acts of persons in authority.

The Indian Constitution, which came into force in 1950, unequivocally asserts in Article 14 that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India". Article 21 also explicitly states that no one should be deprived of their personal liberty except according to procedure established by law – the criminal actions of the four men who abducted and raped Maya on 22 March 2012 fly in the face of such firm and aspirational declarations by the Central Government. Maya's children also have the constitutional right to free and compulsory education according to Article 21A, yet they continue to live under the shadow of fear for their own safety and the inability to earn enough to pay school fees. The Indian Constitution goes even further to acknowledge the need for extra assistance, protection and special provisions to be made for women and children, who are amongst the most vulnerable in any society. Such clauses are pragmatic inasmuch as they represent humanitarian ideals and ambitions – women comprise a numerically significant and hardworking section of the labour market and are crucial to the flourishing of the Indian economy. Children are indispensable human resources and India's hope and future, and deserve to enjoy all the benefits and protection law can confer. The moorings of the existing regime have come loose if even the most basic entitlements afforded by legal statutes are inaccessible to the ordinary person upon whose sovereignty the justification of a republic's existence rests.

To weigh the actions of the five suspects against standards established in the 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC) would also lead one to conclude and censure the criminality of their behaviour. Voluntarily causing hurt is a cognisable crime according to Section 319 and 321 of the IPC. Section 362, 376 and 390 in the IPC respectively outlaw abduction, rape (non-consensual sexual intercourse) and robbery. Assault, defined in part as the making of any gesture or preparation that causes any person to apprehend that he is about to suffer violence, is another listed breach of law in the IPC. Criminal intimidation by intentionally causing alarm and credibly threatening a person with injury also constitutes an offense (Section 503). Gang rape is punishable with a term not less than ten years (and which may extend to a life sentence) and possibly a fine (Section 376(2)(g), IPC), while the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt during robbery is also a minimum jail term of ten years (and which may extend to a life sentence) and the convicted individual may also be liable to pay a fine (Section 394, IPC). These were felonies committed against the convoy and against Maya, yet the five men responsible have not been formally charged and tried.

The 1973 Criminal Procedure Code, another key legal document in India that provides guidelines vis-à-vis due process and proper protocol to be observed by law enforcement agencies, does not offer immunity to the IRB officers involved. Sections 45, 132(d) and 197(2) specifically state that "no member of the Armed Forces of the Union shall be arrested for anything done or purported to be done by him in the discharge of his official duties except after obtaining the consent of the Central Government". The IRB officers had obviously not been acting in their official capacity or carrying out sanctioned military action are their actions are thus morally and legally indefensible.

Manipur has been proclaimed a "disturbed" area under the 1958 Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. Under this draconian law, any commissioned officer may "use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law" (Section 4(a)) and arrest individuals on mere suspicion (Article 4(c)). Section 6 further prevents the institution of legal proceedings against any officer in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act. The "disturbed" status of Manipur and other states in the northeast have been used to legitimise enhanced military presence, acts of senseless violence and other forms of impunity. Yet, oppressive as this Act is, there is still no provision in it for the assault on unarmed and peaceful vehicle convoys, or for the abduction and rape of a helpless woman. Neither were the men's actions in accordance with the objectives of the Act, which are to maintain order and administrate the State; instead, the men stooped to petty banditry and other wanton, indecent and bullying acts.

The flouting of even more fundamental universal principles and international laws is cause for grave concern, as such is an assault upon the conscience of all humanity and injures India's reputation in the international community. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), promulgated in 1948, expresses the commitment of the member states of the United Nations (UN) to hold sacrosanct the dignity, life, liberty, security and equality before the law of every human individual (Article 3 and 7). Article 5 castigates the practice of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Maya is entitled, without any discrimination, to equal protection of the law (Article 7) – this necessarily includes her right to effective remedy for the wrongs committed against her (Article 8). Maya furthermore has rights against unemployment and to an adequate standard of living for herself and her family according to Articles 23(1) and 25. Her children have a right to free and compulsory education at the elementary level – financial incapacity or physical threat should not stand as impediments to their full development; this is a right enshrined in Article 26 of the UDHR. Many of these rights are reiterated in other legally binding international conventions such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1976 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), two landmark conventions India ratified in 1979.

Article 2(3)(a-c) of the ICCPR speak of the right to redress. Article 7 strictly disallows torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; Articles 9(1) and 10(1) together prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the right to humane treatment and to respect of human dignity when deprived of liberty. Article 26 affirms the belief that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination. The ICESCR, on the other hand, asserts a different category of equally important duties for the member parties to fulfil. Article 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13 commits states to the provision of just and favourable conditions of work (including safe and healthy working conditions), social security and insurance, an adequate standard of living for every individual and his family (including adequate food, clothing and housing, and the continuous improvement of living conditions), the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and education. The 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child, which India ratified in 1992, elaborates the rights of children everywhere to education and development of the child's personality, talents, mental and physical abilities.

These are both noble goals and minimum standards to which the Union Government has bound India. Immunity breeds impunity, and such acts will continue to occur if they are not decisively punished and prevented. This will corrupt the faith of the Indian public in the ability and validity of those to whom they have awarded moral and legal mandate, along with the resources with which to execute these remedies. If India seeks to establish itself as a developed and civilised country – if the Central Government hopes to properly lead and administer its own territories – it must first renew its commitment, as a Republic, to the legitimising sovereignty of the people, and its government must demonstrate the competence to address such incidents of lawlessness that strike at that heart and fundament of the regime's power.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities mentioned below demanding an investigation into this case. Rape and robbery are acts that authorities must not tolerate through negligence. A full and thorough investigation must be conducted into the incident. The victim and her family members must be provided adequate compensation and protection against reprisals, particularly in view of the influence the perpetrators wield amongst law enforcement and their evident willingness to use lethal weapons. The community must also be assured that such senseless acts of unconscionable violence and impunity will not occur again in the future, or, if they do, that they will be capably met by proper checks and balances within the justice system.

The AHRC is also writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment calling for further intervention in this case.

To support this appeal, please click here:

Send an Appeal Letter

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

INDIA: Please investigate the assault, abduction and gang rape of Maya on the road between Bishnupur and Imphal in Manipur at approximately 2am on 22 March 2012 by four men, two of which were identified as Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) officers. Please also investigate the possible involvement of a fifth man, Sub-Inspector of Police at Bishnupur Police Station, Mr Tiken Singh

Name of victim: Phool Maya, 40 years old, resident of Ganglon Part IV Khoupum Sub-Division, Tamenglong District, Manipur who is currently residing at Mangaijang Village, Ward No. 7, Bishnupur District, Manipur

Names of alleged perpetrators:
1. Chungkham Ibomcha alias Iga Singh, 37 years old, s/o Chungkham Shamu Singh of Thongju Boroi Makhong, 1st Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) now posted at Seri Project Site, Sangaipat
2. Kshetrimayum Kennedy alias Dungi, 37 years old, s/o Ksh. Achou Singh of Kongpal Chanam Ieikai, Rifleman of the 1st IRB
3. Laikhuram Rojit Singh, 25 years old, s/o Laikhuram Tomba Singh of Porompat J.N. Hospital Road opposite Gate III
4. Salam Bijen Singh, 34 years old, s/o Salam Gourababu Singh of Uripok Sorbon Thingel
5. Tiken Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bishnupur Police Station

Date of incident: 22 March 2012 around 2am
Place of incident: Near Langpok Kakyai Primary School under the jurisdiction of Nambol Police Station

I am writing to express concern regarding a case of robbery, abduction and gang rape by four men, including two officers of the Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) at an isolated spot near Langpok Kakyai Primary School, on the road between Bishnupur district and Imphal in Manipur at approximately 2am on 22 March 2012, as well as the possible involvement of a Sub-Inspector of Police at Bishnupur Police Station, Mr Tiken Singh, through masterminding the robbery and/or the illegal supply of firearms, later used in organised crime, to the four men.

Maya Kamei, 40-year-old mother of four, was being driven by her brother-in-law in a Saktiman truck from Leimatak towards Imphal around 3pm on 22 March 2012 to sell 40 kilograms of homegrown Umorok. Maya needed the money to pay for her children's schooling fees, and because vehicles travelled infrequently between Imphal and Leimatak and charged exorbitant fees, she took advantage of her brother-in-law's trip to Imphal to sell the chillies. When the six-truck convoy stopped at the Khwairakpan petrol station at Keinou Bazaar to refuel, four men, two IRB servicemen and two civilians, alighted from a silver Santro car and assaulted Sathailung Kamei. One of the assailants was carrying a gun. Two Nokia mobiles, approximately Rs. 6500 in cash and the 40 kilograms of Umorok worth about Rs. 32,000 were forcibly taken from Maya, who was then forced to alight from the truck. She was overpowered, blindfolded and carried away in the front seat of the Santro car to an isolated spot near Langpok Kakyai Primary School.

Despite pleading piteously with the men that she was old enough to be their mother and that it was prohibited for the Meitei to touch a woman during her menstrual period, one of the perpetrators retorted that it did not matter; he did not fear God and he would kill and dump her in a pond. Maya was held down, stripped and raped at gunpoint by all four men. After satisfying their lust, the men dropped Maya at Irom Meijarao Mamang Leikai near Young Union Club, where her relatives later found her.

Maya identified the perpetrators as Chungkham Ibomcha alias Iga Singh (officer from the 1st Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) now posted at Seri Project Site, Sangaipat), Kshetrimayum Kennedy alias Dungi, Rifleman of the 1st IRB), Laikhuram Rojit Singh and Salam Bijen Singh. She confirmed their identities by daringly requesting the culprits return the 40 kilograms of Umorok, and matched their voices with the voices she had heard in the dark when she was taken and gang raped. On the same day (22 March), Maya was medically examined at the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) in Imphal and at around 3pm that afternoon she registered a criminal case against the perpetrators before the Officer-in-Charge of Bishnupur Police Station, First Information Report (FIR) No. 32(3)2012 Bishnupur Police Station U/S 326/384/376/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 25 (1-C) Arms Act, for investigation.

Although only four men had been present at the time of the assault, abduction and gang rape, the perpetrators communicated with a fifth man by mobile. The caller was addressed "Sir Tiken" and reported to as if he had masterminded the entire incident. It came to light during the investigation that the pistol and magazine recovered from one of the culprits belong to a certain Sub-Inspector Tiken Singh. S.I. Tiken Singh of Bishnupur District Commando Unit must therefore also be made to bear responsibility for his involvement in the crime and be thoroughly investigated for the illegal and irresponsible distribution of arms. Although this concrete link was established through the discovery of the provenance of the pistol and despite repeated urging from the Joint Action Committee, S.I. Tiken Singh has not been arrested or suspended from active service.

The five perpetrators named are influential figures well-acquainted with high ranking police personnel at the Bishnupur Police Station. They tried to stifle news of the matter at the police station the same day the FIR was registered. Nevertheless, the victim and her advocates succeeded in the conduct of a Test Identification Parade and to get Maya's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These two procedures are essential to the investigation and prosecution of this terrible crime against a helpless, unarmed village woman, whose efforts to file a charge sheet before a court were fraught with interminable delays and excuses by the police.

A report has been submitted to the Director General of Police of Manipuron 9 April 2012 to request his urgent assistance in investigating this matter and to guide and support the efforts of the Officer-in-Charge of Bishnupur Police Station and the Investigating Officer of FIR No. 32(3) 2012 Bishnupur Police Station U/S 326/384/376/34 IPC and 25(1-C) Arms Act. The immediate suspension and arrest of S.I Tiken Singh and the other four perpetrators has also been requested. This report was forwarded also to the Honourable Minister (Home), Manipur and the Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur District, Manipur. A separate letter has also been sent to the Vice-Chairperson of the National Commission on Minorities in New Delhi by the Rongmei Lu Phuam (RLP) and Women of Manipur State on 9 May 2012 recounting the entire incident and requesting the intervention of the authorities.

Previously, Maya depended on the labour-intensive cultivation of chillies in small garden plots and the sale of such in Imphal and Bishnupur to pay for her children's tuition fees. She is the sole breadwinner for her family and forced to travel alone because her husband has a heart condition and was handicapped in a traffic accident some years ago. Maya's physical and psychological injury from the abduction and gang rape affects her ability to work and exacerbates the pre-existing burden to financially provide for her family. Perhaps the greatest impediment to her returning to work is the constant fear of (lethal) retaliatory attacks by the perpetrators, who are in possession of firearms and have not been arrested yet. Maya's husband needs to go for reconstructive surgery at RIMS to restore the use of his right hand, but Maya has no means to pay for the expensive medical procedure, and the local authorities have been slow to provide any sort of assistance to the family. In the meanwhile, Maya's children have been pulled out of school because she has been unable to pay for their schooling and may also be targeted by the men who had victimised their mother.

Yet Maya has made it clear to the police, the perpetrators and the public that she will not accept financial settlement outside court. She is a passionate advocate of women's rights, deeply concerned about the lack of protection of females in the community and, having been personally abused, and believes the only manner in which such a wrong can begin to be addressed is for legal proceedings and punitive action to be brought against the offenders. She believes the perpetrators should be punished to the severest extent of the law, and should serve as an example of all who would attempt in the future such outrageous violence against women.

Inaction condones and, in such cases, has the same criminal consequence as complicity, particularly where the provincial authorities have a moral and legal responsibility to help. The authorities have not done enough to bring justice to the victim and her family. They have been slow to publicly express their condemn
ation, thoroughly investigate the matter, punish those responsible and render practical assistance to Maya and her family. It is this apathy that has led to Maya's children also becoming victims as a direct consequence of the attack on their mother. If Maya is unable to work, her husband will continue to be incapacitated and her children will not be able to attend school and seek better jobs in the future. This is a vicious cycle that the government, possessed of the resource and the moral and legal mandate, should seek to disrupt.

Statistically, women make up a significant percentage of any population. While many local and international laws have been passed to ensure their legal, constitutional and human rights are protected, excruciatingly few practical safeguards exist for this physically and economically vulnerable sector of Indian society. The case described above is just one instance in which physical and psychological trauma has been inflicted on a woman and her family's financial survival severely jeopardised by the criminal acts of persons in authority.

The Indian Constitution, which came into force in 1950, unequivocally asserts in Article 14 that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India". Article 21 also explicitly states that no one should be deprived of their personal liberty except according to procedure established by law – the criminal actions of the four men who abducted and raped Maya on 22 March 2012 fly in the face of such firm and aspirational declarations by the Central Government. Maya's children also have the constitutional right to free and compulsory education according to Article 21A, yet they continue to live under the shadow of fear for their own safety and the inability to earn enough to pay school fees. The Indian Constitution goes even further to acknowledge the need for extra assistance, protection and special provisions to be made for women and children, who are amongst the most vulnerable in any society. Such clauses are pragmatic inasmuch as they represent humanitarian ideals and ambitions – women comprise a numerically significant and hardworking section of the labour market and are crucial to the flourishing of the Indian economy. Children are indispensable human resources and India's hope and future, and deserve to enjoy all the benefits and protection law can confer. The moorings of the existing regime have come loose if even the most basic entitlements afforded by legal statutes are inaccessible to the ordinary person upon whose sovereignty the justification of a republic's existence rests.

To weigh the actions of the five suspects against standards established in the 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC) would also lead one to conclude and censure the criminality of their behaviour. Voluntarily causing hurt is a cognisable crime according to Section 319 and 321 of the IPC. Section 362, 376 and 390 in the IPC respectively outlaw abduction, rape (non-consensual sexual intercourse) and robbery. Assault, defined in part as the making of any gesture or preparation that causes any person to apprehend that he is about to suffer violence, is another listed breach of law in the IPC. Criminal intimidation by intentionally causing alarm and credibly threatening a person with injury also constitutes an offense (Section 503). Gang rape is punishable with a term not less than ten years (and which may extend to a life sentence) and possibly a fine (Section 376(2)(g), IPC), while the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt during robbery is also a minimum jail term of ten years (and which may extend to a life sentence) and the convicted individual may also be liable to pay a fine (Section 394, IPC). These were felonies committed against the convoy and against Maya, yet the five men responsible have not been formally charged and tried.

The 1973 Criminal Procedure Code, another key legal document in India that provides guidelines vis-à-vis due process and proper protocol to be observed by law enforcement agencies, does not offer immunity to the IRB officers involved. Sections 45, 132(d) and 197(2) specifically state that "no member of the Armed Forces of the Union shall be arrested for anything done or purported to be done by him in the discharge of his official duties except after obtaining the consent of the Central Government". The IRB officers had obviously not been acting in their official capacity or carrying out sanctioned military action are their actions are thus morally and legally indefensible.

Manipur has been proclaimed a "disturbed" area under the 1958 Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. Under this draconian law, any commissioned officer may "use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law" (Section 4(a)) and arrest individuals on mere suspicion (Article 4(c)). Section 6 further prevents the institution of legal proceedings against any officer in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act. The "disturbed" status of Manipur and other states in the northeast have been used to legitimise enhanced military presence, acts of senseless violence and other forms of impunity. Yet, oppressive as this Act is, there is still no provision in it for the assault on unarmed and peaceful vehicle convoys, or for the abduction and rape of a helpless woman. Neither were the men's actions in accordance with the objectives of the Act, which are to maintain order and administrate the State; instead, the men stooped to petty banditry and other wanton, indecent and bullying acts.

The flouting of even more fundamental universal principles and international laws is cause for grave concern, as such is an assault upon the conscience of all humanity and injures India's reputation in the international community. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), promulgated in 1948, expresses the commitment of the member states of the United Nations (UN) to hold sacrosanct the dignity, life, liberty, security and equality before the law of every human individual (Article 3 and 7). Article 5 castigates the practice of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Maya is entitled, without any discrimination, to equal protection of the law (Article 7) – this necessarily includes her right to effective remedy for the wrongs committed against her (Article 8). Maya furthermore has rights against unemployment and to an adequate standard of living for herself and her family according to Articles 23(1) and 25. Her children have a right to free and compulsory education at the elementary level – financial incapacity or physical threat should not stand as impediments to their full development; this is a right enshrined in Article 26 of the UDHR. Many of these rights are reiterated in other legally binding international conventions such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the 1976 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), two landmark conventions India ratified in 1979.

Article 2(3)(a-c) of the ICCPR speak of the right to redress. Article 7 strictly disallows torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; Articles 9(1) and 10(1) together prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the right to humane treatment and to respect of human dignity when deprived of liberty. Article 26 affirms the belief that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination. The ICESCR, on the other hand, asserts a different category of equally important duties for the member parties to fulfil. Article 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13 commits states to the provision of just and favourable conditions of work (including safe and healthy working conditions), social security and insurance, an adequate standard of living for every individual and his family (including adequate food, clothing and housing, and the continuous improvement of living conditions), the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and education. The 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child, which India ratified in 1992, elaborates the rights of children everywhere to education and development of the child's personality, talents, mental and physical abilities.

These are both noble goals and minimum standards to which the Union Government has bound India. Immunity breeds impunity, and such acts will continue to occur if they are not decisively punished and prevented. This will corrupt the faith of the Indian public in the ability and validity of those to whom they have awarded moral and legal mandate, along with the resources with which to execute these remedies. If India seeks to establish itself as a developed and civilised country – if the Central Government hopes to properly lead and administer its own territories – it must first renew its commitment, as a Republic, to the legitimising sovereignty of the people, and its government must demonstrate the competence to address such incidents of lawlessness that strike at that heart and fundament of the regime's power.

Without timely intervention from the local and central authorities, the people of Manipur, particularly the most vulnerable segments of society – women, children the elderly, the widowed, the illiterate and members of minority groups – face, for the foreseeable future, continued abuse of their freedoms and physical person and no likelihood for justice to be served to those acting with complete impunity.

I therefore demand that:

1. The case is formally investigated by an independent agency or commission appointed or established by the Central Government at the earliest possible moment;
2. The four men are arrested as soon as sufficient evidence can be found upon which to prosecute them, and the four men are punished according to law if found guilty;
3. Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiken Singh, is investigated for the criminal sale or supply of small firearms to unauthorised individuals and for involvement in the robbery, abduction and gang rape of Maya;
4. The relevant authorities initiate a more comprehensive system through which lethal weapons issued to law enforcement and armed forces can be regularly accounted for;
5. Timely and adequate compensation is awarded Maya and her family for the crimes committed against them, including the income lost through medical expenses and income opportunity lost for the period she has had to remain in hiding for fear of her and her children's lives;
6. The central and state governments rehabilitate the victim and her family by providing adequate interim funds with which her children may resume school and her husband's operation may proceed;
7. Violence against women, particularly sexual and other forms of physical abuse, is an issue prominently discussed and condemned by the authorities;
8. Adequate protection is given to the victim and her family, who may be subject to retaliatory attacks;
9. The Central Government place an emphasis on the legal, constitutional and human rights of individuals when training and briefing police officers, members of the judiciary and personnel in the armed forces, and undertake to directly protect such rights also from the centre if provincial authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.

Yours sincerely,

---------------------------------------------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Director General of Police
PHQ Imphal Manipur
795001 Imphal, Manipur
INDIA
Fax + 91 385 2223829
E-mail: dgp.mnp@hub.nic.in

2. Mr. Okram Ibobi Singh
Chief Minister of Manipur
New Secretariat Building
Bapupara, Imphal, Manipur
INDIA
Fax + 91 385 2451398
E-mail: cmmani@hub.nic.in

3. Officer on Special Duty (Home)
Government of Manipur
Civil Secretariat
Imphal, Manipur
INDIA

4. Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi 110001
INDIA
Fax: + 91 11 2338 4863
E-mail: chairnhrc@nic.in

5. Superintendent of Police
Government of Manipur
Mini Secretariat Complex
Bishnupur, Manipur
INDIA

6. Ms. Mamta Sharma
Chairperson, National Commission for Women
4, Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Marg,
New Delhi-110 002
INDIA
E-mail: chairperson-ncw@nic.in

Thank you

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Send an Appeal Letter

Visit our new website with more features at www.humanrights.asia.

You can make a difference. Please support our work and make a donation here.

ENDS

© Scoop Media