Abstract

A growing world power and a nuclear state, India is ranked among the world’s most terrorism-afflicted countries. Thousands of civilians have been killed in attacks staged by an array of groups with religious, separatist, nationalist or regional agendas, from leftwing Maoists to rightwing Hindus and extremist Muslims. Some groups are indigenous while others are trained or based in neighboring states. Several strikes are rooted in tensions that have persisted since the 1947 partition of British India, and the two nation’s competing claims to the Kashmir region wedged between them. Indian authorities blame an increasing number of recent attacks on Muslim extremists from India and nearby countries who are often recruited, trained or armed by Pakistan-based militants. Among the worst of these attacks was the 2008 siege in Mumbai, later linked to the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). At least 174 people were killed and over 300 injured.

The Indian government’s response illustrates a disturbing trend: grave human rights violations are committed as security forces attempt to identify the perpetrators. Abuses occur at every stage of the investigation. Often, suspects brought in for questioning are held illegally in police lockups, army barracks or secret detention centers and tortured for information or to secure a confession. Arrests are not registered for days, even weeks, because once arrested a suspect has to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours under Indian law. Once handed into police custody, suspects can still be subjected to intimidation, even torture. Earlier, a remand into judicial custody was considered to be safe. But several terror suspects have repeatedly alleged beatings and ill treatment by fellow inmates, in collusion with jail authorities. Particularly of concern is the tendency to kill terror suspects in custody and then falsely claim that they were killed in a shoot-out.

The Indian police is undertrained and overworked, and has been repeatedly accused of violations during criminal investigations. Public sympathy is however limited when it comes to terror suspects. There are repeated allegations of grave human rights violations against anti terrorism squads of the police, or the army and paramilitary where they are deployed. Yet, there is little support for advocacy of the rights of terror suspects. Even the presumption of innocence is suspended during media reporting in many cases, particularly in the case of Muslim suspects. The Indian state, at the highest levels, conscious of a large Muslim population, does not use terms such as ‘Islamic terrorism.’ However, that seldom translated into practice at the investigation level, where Muslim suspects often say they are called ‘Pakistanis.’ Under the over-arching theme of the US ‘war of terror,’ it is not uncommon among some Hindu right wing groups to denounce Islam as violent. Much more insidious and hard to prove are the allegations that Muslims find it much harder to find employment or tenancy.

India’s abusive response is both illegal and counterproductive. By relying on forced and sometimes fabricated confessions, Indian authorities risk punishing the wrong suspects while perpetrators remain free. Moreover, repeated allegations of human rights violations often serve as a recruitment tool for violent extremists planning further attacks.