"No one shall be subject to torture, or to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment"

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"

Article 9

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations more than 50 years ago, sets out "the rights which belong equally to every person". The Declaration doesn't actually say anything about the rights of people caught in conflict situations, but the reality is clear: in conflicts such as the apparently endless struggles in Kashmir and the North East, the rights enunciated in the Declaration are consistently abused.

Nothing poses a bigger challenge to reporters than covering internal conflicts in which a section of the people has launched a struggle against the state for greater independence. They may be described as 'terrorists' or 'militants' by those supporting the state, 'freedom fighters' by those sympathetic to their cause. Normally, the rebels are projected as a threat to society, but they often can claim to represent the rights of an oppressed minority deserving media coverage. The question of whether they are indigenous or supported by foreign forces has also to be taken into account.

In such situations, the state tends to be repressive and expects the media to support it. Journalists and local newspapers are also forced by militant groups to publish their version. It is here that their objectivity and commitment to human rights is tested.

Here are two events on the ground. The theatre: Kashmir.

Incident One. April 14, 1996. Mohammad Iqbal was arrested by soldiers of the Rashtriya Rifles and taken to Chhatru Camp, near Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir. His body, bearing marks of torture, was discovered in the nearby Chhatru river soon after.

No-one has been charged in the case.

Incident Two. November 3, 1995. According to local human rights organisations, officers from Banihal police station arrested Ayaz Ahmad Wani of Bankoot village, Banihal, and tortured him there and in the jail at Ramban for five days. On November 8, police brought the youth to a hospital in Ramban with marks indicating torture on his arms, hands, face, and genitals. He was transferred to the government medical college in Jammu, where he died of his injuries.

Nearly three years later, on July 18, 1998, the father of the victim filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and the case was referred to police for investigation. There was no further progress in the case by year's end.

(Both stories extracted from a report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, 1997)

There are also cases of alleged rapes and atrocities being magnified or made up for media consumption. One allegation of mass rape by soldiers which created headlines was later investigated by a well-known journalist, B.G. Verghese, and found to have been manufactured. Even so, Kashmir remains India's prime illustration of the abuse of human rights in time of conflict, with the security forces having powers of detention and search of suspect areas.

International human rights agencies have frequently expressed concern about Kashmir.

Amnesty International said in a 1999 report that there was "a pattern of human rights abuses committed by Indian security forces in connivance with armed groups" (http://www.amnesty.org ). And in its World Report, 1999, the Washington-based Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org) describes the massacres of Hindu civilians by what it says are Pakistan-backed militant groups as "a deadly new development".

The two stories quoted by the UN Special Rapporteur suggest that despite the uncompromising Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the machinery that exists to lodge complaints about rights abuse, registering a complaint doesn't always take you very far. It is understandable if citizens have little hope of justice and compensation when the agencies responsible for checking abuses can take so long to dispense justice. And not surprising, perhaps, if people then resort to direct action.

Take a case in Kashmir early in 2001. A custodial death was alleged in Haigam, and people of the area came out to protest. Military personnel surrounded them, opened fire and seven citizens died. For once, the Indian military establishment, which often stoutly denies 'excesses,' admitted that its men did open fire.

This rare case of the establishment accepting some moral responsibility is perhaps a sign of a changing attitude towards rights. In general, though, abuse has been denied, and complaints have been put into the freezers.

The state is armed with special powers to aid its operations in conflict situations, but citizens frequently do not know what those powers are, which makes it easier for the authorities to abuse them, if they so wish.

The authorities in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Assam have special powers to search and arrest without a warrant. The Indian Telegraph Act authorises the surveillance of communications, including monitoring telephone conversations and intercepting personal mail, in case of public emergency or "in the interest of the public safety or tranquillity." It isn't difficult to see how such powers might be abused.

Many instances of abuse go unnoticed. Some are reported in the press, or on radio or television, but not always in depth or with enough attention paid to "what happened next." It requires commitment - from reporters, editors and proprietors - to follow through stories such as these. Amnesty International, which systematically documents rights abuse in conflict theatres and elsewhere, incidentally provides reference material for media bent on exploring human rights abuse. But only the Indian media can monitor effectively the performance of the state.

Media covering conflicts, in Kashmir or elsewhere, face pressures of their own. Reporting human rights abuse in Kashmir invites non-cooperation, hostility or worse from state authority and from rebel leaders. The result is that the right to disseminate information freely is itself a casualty in conflict.

In the last few years, the press has been caught in the cross-fire of the armed opposition groups and government forces in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, and the north-eastern states. The government has not only been known to censor press reports of human rights violations but has also ransacked the offices of some newspapers, and arrested journalists. Some journalists have disappeared after being abducted.

At the same time, armed opposition groups have ordered journalists to abide by their code of conduct and to publish their warnings. Failure to meet their demands has led to the assassination of a number of journalists.

All Srinagar-based newspapers suspended publication from April 20, 1996, for an indefinite period after both the government and militants imposed fresh curbs on them.

(Source: http://www.hri.ca/partners/sahrdc/india )

The National Human Rights Commission's annual reports have focused on rights abuse in Kashmir and other conflict areas. They have highlighted, among other things:
· The reluctance of the state to part with records when a case is heard by the Commission
· Continuing rape, torture and death in custody

The Commission has, however, found that the Army has become more sensitive to human rights issues and has said there is some change in the attitude of the security forces.

http://www.nhrc.nic.in contains all the reports of the National Human Rights Commission, recommendations and specific case studies.