India

The government generally respected the rights of its citizens; however, numerous serious problems remained. Government officials used special antiterrorism legislation to justify the excessiveuse of force while combating active insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and several northeastern states. Security force officials who committed human rights abuses generally enjoyed de facto impunity, although there were reports of investigations into individual abuse cases as well as punishment of some perpetrators by the court system. Corruption was endemic in the government and police forces, and the government made little attempt to combat the problem, except for a few instances highlighted by the media.The lack of firm accountability permeated the government and security forces, creating an atmosphere in which human rights violations often went unpunished. Although the country has numerous laws protecting human rights, enforcement was lax and convictions were rare. Social acceptance of caste-based discrimination remained omnipresent, and for many, validated human rights violations against persons belonging to lower castes. The additional following human rights problems were reported:

 • extrajudicial killings and killings of persons in custody
 • torture and rape by police and security forces
 • poor prison conditions, lengthy pretrial detention without charge, and prolonged detention while undergoing trial
 • occasional limits on press freedom and freedom of movement
 • harassment and arrest of human rights monitors
 • corruption at all levels of government
 • legal and societal discrimination against women
 • forced prostitution, child prostitution, and female infanticide and feticide
 • trafficking in women and children
 • discrimination against persons with disabilities
 • discrimination and violence against indigenous people and scheduled castes and tribes
 • violence based on caste or religion
 • exploitation of indentured, bonded, and child labor.

Separatist guerrillas and terrorists in Kashmir and the northeast committed numerous serious abuses, including killing armed forces personnel, police, government officials, and civilians. Insurgents also engaged in widespread torture, rape, and other forms of violence, including beheadings, kidnapping, and extortion.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

Government forces continued arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of life of those in custody. Police and prison officers also committed extrajudicial killings of suspected insurgents and suspected criminals by the use of staged encounter killings. Terrorist and militant groups killed members of rival factions, government security forces, government officials, and civilians in Jammu and Kashmir, several northeastern states, and in the Naxalite belt in the eastern part of the country (see section 1.g.).

The Home Ministry reported that security forces killed 927 insurgents and terrorists during the year. The ministry also reported that insurgent and terrorist attacks in Jammu and Kashmir declined in 2004 with 733 civilians (including 92 women, 32 children, and 62 political workers), 330 security force members, and 976 insurgents killed. Security forces often used staged encounter killings to cover up the murders of captured non-Kashmiri insurgents and terrorists from Pakistan or other countries, often after torturing them. Human rights groups accused security forces of targeting suspected terrorists, militants and their suspected supporters. There were no widely accepted data on the magnitude of extrajudicial killings in Jammu and Kashmir, with estimates or reports depending on the political orientation of the source. In 2003 the Jammu and Kashmir state human rights commission received 15 complaints relating to custodial deaths and 27 complaints relating to disappearances. Human rights organizations sought to clarify these cases by submitting numerous requests to Jammu and Kashmir authorities, but they received inadequate and unsatisfactory responses.

According to human rights activists, press reports, and anecdotal accounts, the bodies of persons suspected of terrorism and detained by security forces in Jammu and Kashmir often had bullet wounds and/or marks of torture. The South Asian Human Rights Documentation Center (SAHRDC) reported that the number of such custodial deaths decreased slightly during the year, most likely due to the overall decline in infiltrations, as well as a new emphasis by the government on reducing human rights violations. Custodial deaths however, remained a serious problem.

On October 4, the Laopora Police lodged a First Information Report against 10 army officers accused of the February 2004 killing of 5 civilian porters used as human shields by security forces in Kashmir. The case remained open at year's end. In November residents of Pattan, a village 17 miles from Srinagar alleged that militants killed 2 village men after the army used them as human shields in an operation. After protests erupted, the authorities promised to investigate and the investigation remained open at year's end.

In July security forces killed three teenaged boys they mistook for terrorists in the Kupwara area of Kashmir. Security forces maintained that the boys were outside at night during a curfew and ran away when challenged by the officers. The killing sparked widespread protests in the area, and the state government ordered an inquiry, which was not completed by year's end. On July 26, the army offered compensation and an apology to the boys' families.

At year's end no action was taken on the Manorama Devi rape/custodial death case from July 2004. The Upendra Commission, formed in November 2004 to investigate the Devi case, submitted its report to the state government. The inquiry was concluded without the DNA fingerprints and blood samples of the Assam Rifles personnel on duty the night of the incident, and the contents of the report were not made public. On June 23, the state high court directed the Manipur government to send the report to the Union Home Ministry for the Center's action and to make the report public. On August 31, the Manipur government appealed the New Delhi High Court's decision. The appeal was pending at year's end.

Authorities often delayed prosecutions in custodial death cases. In November the National Crime Records Bureau reported two cases of custodial rape in 2004 and noted that authorities completed two trials in 2003 and 2004 with no convictions.

In an attempt to expedite prosecutions, in May authorities updated a law requiring a coroner to conduct a medical examination within 24 hours of a death in custody.

The Asian Center for Human Rights (ACHR) reported the Jammu and Kashmir government ordered 54 inquiries into alleged extra-judicial killings and other human rights violations in 2004 and completed only one. The Home Ministry reported in December that custodial deaths decreased from 183 in 2002-03 to 136 for the 2004 calendar year. In April 2004 Chief of Army Staff General N.C. Vij reported that of 1,340 allegations of human rights abuses reportedly committed from 1990 to 2000 in Jammu and Kashmir, evidence substantiated 33, and 71 personnel had been punished. In May 2004 the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reported that during the past 14 years of insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, the army had punished 131 of its personnel for human rights violations, sentencing 2 persons to life sentences and 33 others to jail terms of 11 to 12 years; the army dismissed 11 personnel and ordered various other punishments for the remainder. The Ministry of Defense stated that since its establishment in 1993, the army human rights office received 342 reports of human rights violations by armed forces in the northeast. The office investigated 318 cases and determined that 290 allegations were baseless. The army acted on the remaining 28 cases, punishing 63 army personnel with penalties ranging from life imprisonment to dismissal and censure. Human rights activists commented that the actual number of abuses was much higher than those reported by the military.

In August the Central Bureau of Investigation recommended the prosecution of four army officers for the killing of five civilians in a staged encounter killing in 2000. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled the related 2003 suspension of Senior Superintendent of Police Khan was illegal and reinstated him.

In January soldiers engaged in an altercation with passengers on a train near Shikohabad railway station in Uttar Pradesh and pushed five passengers off the moving train, killing them. The Railway Police arrested the soldiers and ordered an investigation which remained open at year's end.

According to press reports, members of the security forces rarely were held accountable for staged encounter killings. In February security forces killed Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, a car mechanic, in Magam, Kashmir, while he was returning home from a holiday. On May 6, the army ordered an inquiry into the deaths of two women and a child killed in an encounter between the Assam Rifles and Kuki insurgents in Manipur the day before. The inquiry continued at year's end.

Although the authorities generally did not report encounter deaths that occurred in Jammu and Kashmir to the NHRC, the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) claimed that as of June 2004, there had been 54 custodial deaths since the current Jammu and Kashmir state government assumed office in 2002.

The NHRC reported 136 deaths in police custody and 1,357 deaths in judicial custody countrywide from the beginning of 2004 until March. The NHRC recommended approximately $10 thousand (Rs. 400 thousand) as compensation in 5 cases of death in police custody, and $5,681 (Rs. 250 thousand) in the three cases of deaths while in judicial custody.

During the year the killing of civilians continued in the course of counterinsurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir. Human rights activists stated that accurate numbers were not available due to limited access to the region, but ACHR alleged that 733 civilians were killed in 2004.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the Disturbed Areas Act remained in effect in Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and parts of Tripura, where active and violent secessionist movements existed. The Disturbed Areas Act gives police extraordinary powers of arrest and detention, and the AFSPA provides search and arrest powers without warrants (see section 1.d.). Human rights groups alleged that security forces operated with virtual impunity in areas under the act.

Accountability by the Jammu and Kashmir government remained a serious problem. Human rights groups estimated that 30 to 35 thousand persons died during the two decades of conflict in Jammu and Kashmir, but there were no reliable estimates of the number of deaths resulting directly from abuses. The Jammu and Kashmir governor, Lt. General S.K. Sinha, reported 39 thousand deaths during the conflict.

Security forces committed thousands of serious human rights violations over the course of the insurgency, including extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture (see section 1.g.).

Human rights groups noted that police officials often refused to turn over bodies of dead suspects in cases of suspected staged encounters. The bodies of dead suspects were often cremated before their families could view them. Despite a 2002 Supreme Court order requiring the central government and local authorities to conduct regular checks on police stations to ascertain the incidence of custodial violence, most police stations failed to comply.

There were reports of deaths in custody resulting from alleged torture and other abuses. For example, in June in West Bengal, a human rights nongovernmental organization (NGO) reported that Sunil Roy was detained for allegedly being a pickpocket and was later found dead in the police station. While police claimed he had hanged himself with his belt, the NGO claimed that, per regulations, belts were required to be removed prior to incarceration, and that Roy had other injury marks on his body.

During the year deaths in custody were common, especially for alleged insurgents. From 2002-03, the Home Ministry reported that custodial deaths increased from 1,340 in 2002 to 1,462 by the end of 2003. According to the NHRC, state governments had not investigated at least 3,575 previous deaths in custody cases.

In January the Mumbai high court sentenced 11 policemen to life imprisonment for the custodial death of Dilip Ghosale, who was beaten and killed while in police custody in 1987. In February Punjab authorities filed a case against three policemen for the custodial death of a dalit, a person belonging to a low caste, named Satpal. The death sparked widespread protests in the area. Also in February, the army killed two civilians in Shopian, Kashmir. The security forces claimed they were militants and buried them without a proper investigation. The district magistrate ordered the exhumation of the bodies and an inquiry, but at year's end no action was taken.

In February police killed Faisal Siddiqui in Delhi in an alleged encounter. At year's end police had not filed any charges. In March violence erupted between police and residents of east Delhi following the death of Parmeshwar Dayal, a businessman in police custody. Police claimed Dayal was kidnapped by unknown persons, later rescued by the police, and then committed suicide.

In March the Maharashtra central investigation division arrested four Mumbai police officers and charged them with the August 2004 custodial killing of Khwaja Yunus. At year's end, the four remained in police custody awaiting trial. According to media reports, Mumbai police transferred officers linked to encounter killings from the crime branch, decreasing staged encounter killings in Maharashtra state from 94 reported in 2001 to 11 in 2004.

In May Mumbai police arrested two Railway Police Protection Force (RPF) constables for the killing of railway porter Vijay Singh. After the discovery of Singh's body on the terrace of the Mumbai Central Railway Police Station, police stated there was no record of his arrest, but eye-witnesses reported seeing the two constables taking him into custody. At year's end, both constables were suspended and charges were pending.

In June Assam Rifles soldiers shot and killed Kesarjit Singh, the nephew of a minister in Manipur, after picking him up from his residence. His bullet-ridden body was found in the outskirts of Nongada village. No charge had been filed in the case.

Human rights activists reiterated during the year that there was uneven compliance with a 1993 NHRC directive requiring district magistrates to report to the commission all deaths in police and judicial custody. The NHRC had emphasized that it regarded failure to report as tantamount to a cover-up. The NHRC had not released information detailing which states had attempted to comply with the directive, but the NHRC reported that no state fully complied with this order at year's end.

Despite the purported integration of former Special Operations Group (SOG) personnel into regular police units in Jammu and Kashmir in 2003, former SOG personnel continued to operate in cohesive anti-insurgency units, and regular reports of human rights violations by its members persisted. For example, in August 2004, a unit consisting of former SOG personnel, in coordination with the Border Security Force, raided the house of Manzoor-ul Islam, a suspected insurgent, and allegedly took him into custody. The unit reportedly killed him in an encounter the following day. No action was taken in this case and none was expected. ACHR alleged that SOG forces continued to be responsible for arbitrary killings.

Countermilitants were former separatist guerillas who surrendered but who were permitted by the Jammu and Kashmir government to retain their weapons and paramilitary structure and were inducted into police auxiliary units. Government agencies funded, exchanged intelligence with, and directed the operations of countermilitants as part of the counterinsurgency effort. During the year killings and abductions of suspected and other persons by progovernment countermilitants continued to be a significant problem in Jammu and Kashmir, although the number of such instances has declined substantially since the 1990s.

Countermilitants occasionally searched persons at roadblocks (see section 2.d.) and were present in some rural areas of the Kashmir Valley. The Jammu and Kashmir government, through its sponsoring and condoning of extrajudicial countermilitant activities, was responsible for killings, abductions, and other abuses committed by these groups. According to a human rights activist in Jammu and Kashmir, there were approximately 200 countermilitants operating in the region during the year.

Violence, often resulting in deaths, was a pervasive element in Jammu and Kashmir politics (see section 3). Separatist guerrillas and terrorists attempted to kill numerous senior politicians, making several attempts against Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, People's Democratic Party leader Mehbooba Sayeed, National Conference President Omar Abdullah and his father, former chief minister Farooq Abdullah, as well as many ministers and dozens of other activists in an array of political parties.

At year's end, militants and terrorists killed numerous politicians and political workers. ACHR reported that 62 political activists were killed in 2004. For example on October 18, insurgents killed the Jammu and Kashmir Education Minister Ghulam Nabi Lone and wounded secretary of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) Mohammed Yusuf Tarigami in Srinagar. Also in Srinagar on May 3, insurgents killed Muhammad Ramzan Mian, the chairman of the Pattan Municipal Committee in north Kashmir, and three policemen while Mian was shopping in the town market.

Countrywide, there were allegations that military and paramilitary forces engaged in abduction, torture, rape, arbitrary detention, and the extrajudicial killing of militants and noncombatant civilians, particularly in areas of insurgency (see sections 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., and 1.g.). According to human rights activists and journalists, during the year a few Naxalites (Maoist guerillas) in eastern and central parts of the country (including Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, parts of Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra) who surrendered were allowed to retain their weapons and worked for the police as "anti-People's War Group (PWG) officers." Human rights groups alleged that police used former Naxalites to kill current Naxalites and human rights activists with Maoist links. Police denied the charges, attributing such killings to internal feuds within the PWG. Several hundred PWG militants surrendered during the year.

During the year, there were numerous instances of abuse by insurgent and terrorist groups in both Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states (see section 1.g.).

b. Disappearance

Although government complicity was not always confirmed, scores of persons disappeared in strife and insurgency-torn areas during the year.

The latest figures available from the Jammu and Kashmir government from 2003 stated that 3,931 persons had disappeared in the state since the insurgency began in 1990, compared with an APDP estimate which put the number at approximately 8 to 10 thousand. In September ACHR reported that more than six thousand cases of disappearances remain unresolved in the state. In May 2004 the government reported that many of those listed as missing by the APDP in 2003 had joined insurgent groups, had been killed, were in custody, or were in Pakistan.

On May 2, in response to a petition filed by the father of Mohammad Hussain Ashraf, a boy with mental disabilities arrested by an army patrol in Jammu and Kashmir in 2003, the high court issued a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of Pantha Chowk station house officer Ghulam Ahmed Bhat for failing to register a case against troops involved in the disappearance of Ashraf and for disregarding a court order.

In March nine years after the death of human rights lawyer Jalil Andrabi, the Jammu and Kashmir government officially closed the case without any arrests.

Human rights groups maintained that in Jammu and Kashmir and in the northeastern states, numerous persons continued to be held by military and paramilitary forces. Human rights activists feared that many of these unacknowledged prisoners were subjected to torture and some were killed extrajudicially (see sections 1.a. and 1.c.).

The government maintained that screening committees administered by the state governments provided information about the unacknowledged detainees to their families. Other sources indicated that families could only confirm the detention of their relatives by bribing prison guards. In February authorities released 34 former militants from custody, and in October, the Jammu and Kashmir government announced the release of 44 detainees previously held under the 1978 Public Safety Act.

The government failed to hold hundreds of police and security officials accountable for serious human rights abuses committed during the Punjab counterinsurgency of 1984-94, despite the presence of a special investigatory commission. In March prosecution lawyer and human rights activist Brinjinder Singh Sodhi claimed that he was threatened by a police officer accused in the disappearance case of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Kalara. Kalara, who claimed the government was responsible for over two thousand extrajudicial killings of Sikhs during its counterinsurgency campaign, was kidnapped in 1995, and his body was never found. On November 18, 10 years after the crime, 2 police officers, Jaspal Singh and Amarjit Singh, were found guilty of murdering Kalara and destroying evidence related to the case, and they were sentenced to life imprisonment. The courts found four other officers guilty of kidnapping with the intent to murder and sentenced them to seven years imprisonment. No action was taken against the police official who had threatened Sodhi.

During the year the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed to be pursuing charges against dozens of police officials implicated in the 1980s for hundreds of murders and secret cremations. NGOs and Human Rights activists alleged that police in Amritsar, Majitha, and Tarn Taran districts secretly disposed of approximately two thousand bodies of suspected Sikh insurgents they had murdered. Security forces abducted, extrajudicially executed, and cremated the alleged insurgents without the knowledge or consent of their families during the height of Sikh insurgency in Punjab.

The NHRC continued to investigate 2,097 cases of illegal murder/cremation that occurred between 1984 and the early 1990s. The NHRC asked families whose members had disappeared to come forward and provide evidence. The NHRC has not released its findings, and no significant progress was made in bringing to justice those responsible for the killings. Families of victims petitioned the NHRC for redress, and a small percentage received a response in July 2004.

In July the NHRC directed the CBI to give the Punjab government access to documents regarding the illegal murder and cremation of 64 persons by the Punjab police during the insurgency.

There were credible reports that police throughout the country often failed to file legally required arrest reports, resulting in hundreds of unsolved disappearances in which relatives claimed that an individual was taken into police custody and never heard from again. Police usually denied these claims, pointing to the lack of an arrest record.

Insurgents in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states continued to use kidnappings to terrorize the population, obtain the release of detained comrades, and extort funds. At the end of 2004 the government verified that few kidnappers were arrested or prosecuted. Insurgents and terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast killed some kidnapping victims (see sections 1.a. and 1.g.). In March in Rajouri district, insurgents kidnapped Mohameed Naseeb, who was later killed during a fight between militants and security forces. Also in March, militants belonging to the insurgent group Hizbul Mujahidin killed three security force members in Srinagar.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The law prohibits torture and generally did not allow for confessions extracted by force to be admissible in court; however, authorities often used torture during interrogations to extort money and as summary punishment.

The ACHR alleged that deaths in custody were a severe problem and that police regularly used torture. Because many alleged torture victims died in custody, and other victims were afraid to speak out, there were few firsthand accounts. Marks of torture, however, were often found on the bodies of deceased detainees. The prevalence of torture by police in detention facilities throughout the country was reflected in the number of deaths in police custody (see section 1.a.). Police and jailers typically assaulted new prisoners for money and personal articles. In addition, police commonly tortured detainees during custodial interrogation. Although police officers were subject to prosecution for such offenses, the government often failed to hold them accountable. According to Amnesty International (AI), torture usually took place during criminal investigations and following unlawful and arbitrary arrests.

In February the Jalandhar district police tortured and killed a dalit youth when he refused to confess to theft. In May in Tamil Nadu, police arrested Mariappan, a person belonging to a lower caste, for stealing valuables from the house where he was employed. Mariappan told media that police inflicted serious injuries on him while he was in their custody.

In June two persons were killed and a dozen injured when RPF personnel fired at a mob that formed after the RPF severely beat a ticketless traveller at Dadri railway station in Uttar Pradesh. The government ordered an inquiry and awarded compensation to those injured and to the next of kin of the deceased.

In August eye-witnesses told the media that Mumbai assistant commissioner of police Arun Desai beat Taj Mohammed, a shopkeeper, on the head with a hockey stick, causing a severe head injury. Desai then arrested Mohammed for assault and the use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. No action was taken against Desai.

There were incidents in which police beat journalists (see section 2.a.), demonstrators (see section 2.b.), and Muslim students (see section 2.c.). Police also committed abuses against indigenous people (see section 5).

Police used violence or the threat of violence to extort money and favors. In January Mumbai police constable Sunil Kamble beat a local shopkeeper, Roop Narayan Yadav, until he was unconscious, after Yadav asked Kamble to pay for his purchases. After an internal probe, the Mumbai police suspended Kamble, and charges were pending at year's end.

In Jammu and Kashmir, torture victims or their relatives reportedly had difficulty filing complaints, as local police allegedly were instructed not to open a case without permission from higher authorities. In addition, under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act of 1990, no "prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers of the act," without the approval of the central government. The act gives security forces the authority to shoot suspected lawbreakers and those disturbing the peace, and to destroy structures suspected of harboring militants or containing weapons. Human rights organizations alleged that this provision allowed security forces to act with virtual impunity (see section 1.d.).

The rape of persons in custody was part of a broader pattern of custodial abuse. NGOs asserted that rape by police, including custodial rape, was more common than NHRC figures indicated. A higher incidence of abuse appeared credible, given other evidence of abusive behavior by police, and the likelihood that many rapes went unreported due to the victims' shame and fear of retribution. However, legal limits placed on the arrest, search, and police custody of women appeared to reduce the frequency of rape in custody. There were no recent NHRC data on the extent of custodial rape.

In February a soldier with the Tripura State Rifles raped a minor girl in West Tripura district. Public outrage led to his arrest.

According to 2002 records from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the latest available, courts tried 132 policemen for custodial rape, but only 4 were convicted. The Ministry of Defense reported that it filed 17 rape cases and 10 murder cases against army personnel from 2003-2004. To date, one rape case and five murder cases ended in guilty verdicts. In the remaining cases, the investigations remained ongoing or the charges were proved false.

In January a report prepared by retired judge Chanambam Updendra Singh found 2 members of the 12th grenadiers army unit guilty of raping 15-year-old Nandeibam Sanjita Devi in Manipur in 2003. Devi committed suicide after recounting her ordeal to her mother.

In February an Assam Rifles constable allegedly raped a 12-year-old girl in the Karbi Anglong district of Assam, sparking widespread protests from various women's organizations. Medical examination confirmed the rape, and a case was filed against the constable. Police arrested the soldier and the two women who assisted in the rape, and all three were in custody at year's end.

In September authorities charged two members of the Bihar police with the custodial rape of a 35-year-old widow who was detained on a murder charge. The court ordered an inquiry in the case, which remained ongoing at year's end.

There was a pattern of rape by paramilitary personnel in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast as a means of instilling fear among non-combatants in insurgency-affected areas (see section 1.g.), but these incidents were not included in NHRC statistics, as the NHRC does not have direct investigative authority over the military.

A Major Rehman was dismissed in January from military service after being convicted by a court martial for his involvement in the November 2004 rape of a mother and daughter during a search operation near Handwara in Kashmir. Also in January, the army dismissed a rifleman from service after a court martial convicted him of molestation of an elderly woman in Pahalgam.

In July 2004 the National Commission for Women (NCW) directed all mental hospitals to check the legitimacy of insanity certificates after receiving reports of husbands falsely committing their wives to obtain divorces. The NCW issued the edict after authorities accused a resident psychiatrist at the Agra Mental Asylum of issuing false insanity certificates for this purpose. On July 23, the Agra police arrested the doctor, who remained in judicial custody at year's end.

In 2004 the government gave the NHRC the authority to recommend interim compensation in cases relating to human rights abuses by the armed forces. Officers of the rank of colonel were designated at the command, corps, division and counter-insurgency headquarters to monitor human rights issues. Under the guidelines, the NHRC cannot charge a member of the armed forces of a human rights abuse without government permission. The NHRC reported a continued decline in reported human rights abuses by the military, with 16 cases reported in 2003, and only 4 in 2004. The NHRC reported that it registered 756 cases against the military, 172 against paramilitary forces, and 109,902 against the police since 2001.

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Prison conditions were harsh, life-threatening, and did not meet international standards. Prisons were severely overcrowded, and food and medical care inadequate. For example, the Mumbai-based Criminal Justice Initiative reported that there were three thousand inmates in Bombay Central Jail, which has an actual capacity of 800. Human rights organizations reported that 60 to 75 percent of all detainees were in jail awaiting trial, drastically contributing to overcrowding. They also asserted that approximately 65 percent of those detained were found innocent. Due to persistent inefficiencies in the judicial system, there were numerous instances in which detainees spent more time in jail under pretrial detention than they would have if found guilty and sentenced to the longest possible term (see section 1.d.).

In June 77-year-old Machang Lalung was released after spending 54 years in jail without a trial. Lalung was arrested in 1951 from Silsilang in Assam for "causing grevious hurt," a crime which carries a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. Shortly after his arrest, according to human rights activists, police withdrew the charges against him due to a lack of evidence, and transferred him to a psychiatric institution, and then forgot him. In 1967, the authorities at the institution certified Mr. Lalung as "fully fit" and said he should be released. Instead of releasing Lalung, police transferred him to another jail, once again without trial. Lalung was released only after human rights activists learned of his case, brought it to the attention of the NHRC, and paid a personal bond of two cents (one rupee). Magistrate HK Sarma, who released Mr. Lalung, stated "Neither the executive nor the judiciary avoid responsibility for Machang Lalung's detention for so long on the grounds of mere procedure or technicalities."

The case of Machang Lalung was the most egregious case out of five of the lengthiest cases of prisoners held without trial for extended periods. The others were: Khalilur Rehman, incarcerated for 35 years; Anil Kumar Burman, incarcerated for 33 years; Sonamani Deb, incarcerated for 32 years; and Parbati Mallik, incarcerated for 32 years.

The NHRC subsequently requested Assamese authorities to submit reports on five other pretrial prisoners presently detained at the LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health in Tezpur, Assam.

As of July, the 8 central prisons, including Tihar Jail and the Rohini district jail in Delhi, had an official capacity of 5,648, but held 13,160 prisoners.

According to one NHRC report, a large proportion of the deaths in judicial custody were from natural causes, in some cases aggravated by poor prison conditions (see section 1.a.). Tuberculosis caused many deaths, as did HIV/AIDS. The NHRC assigned its special rapporteur and chief coordinator of custodial justice to ensure that state prison authorities performed medical check-ups on all inmates. By year's end, only a few examinations had been performed.

By law juveniles must be detained in rehabilitative facilities, although at times they were detained in prison, especially in rural areas. Pretrial detainees were not separated from convicted prisoners.

During the year custodial deaths at the hands of police continued. In September the Assam Human Rights Commission asked the state government to take appropriate action against jail authorities for failing to properly treat Mithinga Daimary and Ramu Mech, United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) leaders who were ill while awaiting trial. Mech was subsequently taken to Delhi for treatment. In August in Tezpur, ULFA Chief Advisor Robin Handique died in detention after he was allegedly denied proper medical care. An inquiry was pending at year's end.

In June 2004 the Delhi High Court found several police officers guilty in the custodial death of an auto-rickshaw driver, and fined them each approximately $11 thousand (Rs. 530 thousand).

While local authorities often attempted to hide custodial killings, the NHRC and the courts investigated those cases brought to their attention and prosecuted some perpetrators. In most cases, the courts awarded monetary compensation of between $400 (Rs. 17,500) and $2,200 (Rs. 96 thousand) to the next of kin. NGO sources stated that relatives often had to pay bribes to receive the compensation awarded, and in many cases never received it at all.

Some NGOs were allowed to work in prisons, within specific governmental guidelines, but their findings remained largely confidential as a result of agreements made with the government. Although custodial abuse was deeply rooted in police practices, increased press reporting and parliamentary questioning provided evidence of growing public awareness of the problem. The NHRC identified torture and deaths in detention as one of its priority concerns.

According to the Home Ministry's 2004 annual report, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visited 55 detention centers and over 7 thousand detainees during the year, including all acknowledged detention centers in Jammu and Kashmir, and all facilities where Kashmiris were held elsewhere in the country. During the year the ICRC visited 28 places of detention in Jammu and Kashmir and found that 1,356 persons were detained--524 of them newly registered. The ICRC was not authorized to visit interrogation or transit centers, nor did it have access to regular detention centers in the northeastern states (see sections 1.c. and 4). During the year the ICRC stated that it continued to encounter difficulties in maintaining regular access to persons detained in Jammu and Kashmir.

In a report issued in January 2004 the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture commented that torture and detentions continued in the country, especially in Jammu and Kashmir, and noted the government's continued refusal to extend him an invitation to conduct investigations. A report published during the year of the Special Rapporteur Civil and Political Rights, listed cases of torture by the government. It noted that in June 2004 police beat Gulzar Ahmed Daded of Sangerwani, Pulwama District, Kashmir, until he was unconscious because he protested against a death in custody. Daded was taken to a hospital in Srinagar, where he died in July 2004. It also reported that in March 2004, police used excessive force during a march held by the APDP in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir. The police dispersed the march and hit participants with canes, dragged women by their hair, beat them and ripped off their clothes. Police arrested several APDP members, human rights activists, as well as family and friends of the disappeared and took them into police custody for unlawful assembly and assault of police officers; they were released on bail after seven hours.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention

The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, but both occurred during the year.

Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

Although the 28 state governments have primary responsibility for maintaining law and order, the central government provides guidance and support. The Ministry for Home Affairs controls most paramilitary forces, the internal intelligence bureaus, and the nationwide police service, and provides training for senior police officers of the state-organized police forces. The civilian authorities maintained effective control of the security forces. Members of the security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses.

Corruption in the police force was commonplace and severely diminished its effectiveness. Officers at all levels acted with relative impunity and were rarely held accountable for illegal actions. When an officer was found guilty of a crime, the most common punishment was transfer to a different position or post. Human rights activists and NGOs reported that bribery was often necessary to receive police services.

For example on November 3, the NDTV news channel caught Delhi Police Inspector Satya Raj demanding $600 (Rs. 26 thousand) from a dead man's family for return of his body. At year's end, police had not filed charges against Raj.

Corruption in the police force led to cases of illegal and arbitrary arrest during the year. For example in January, authorities in Mumbai suspended five police officers for planting evidence and framing a merchant in October 2004. The merchant was wrongfully made to spend five months in pretrial detention. At year's end, charges against the officers were pending.

In April two scrap dealers, Sadaf Nazar Khan and Azaz Khan complained to Mumbai police that a police inspector kidnapped them, illegally detained them, robbed them of approximately $2,800 (Rs. 120 thousand), and asked for further payment from relatives for their release. The Mumbai police suspended the inspector and two other police officers, and at year's end, an inquiry was ongoing.

In July authorities arrested B.B. Patre, a senior superintendent of police in Maharashtra, for threatening a Dhule city kerosene dealer with arrest if Patre was not paid a $23 thousand (Rs. 1 million) bribe.

NGOs and human rights activists alleged that police often committed human rights violations with impunity and that police corruption was pervasive and acknowledged by many government officials. The NHRC reported that the majority of complaints it received were against police. Although the Malimath Committee on Judicial Reform issued a report in 2003 proposing police reforms, measures had not been implemented at year's end. Some human rights activists maintained that the committee's main goal was to increase arrests and prosecutions instead of protecting the rights of the accused. Punjab Director General of Police A.A. Siddiqui reported that police had received 17 thousand complaints in 2004, including 6,261 from the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, 376 from the NHRC, and 46 from the NHRC for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The media reported that courts found 59 police officers guilty of violating human rights in Punjab in 2004

Arrest and Detention

The law requires that detainees be informed of the grounds for their arrest, be represented by legal counsel, and, unless held under a preventive detention law, arraigned within 24 hours of arrest, at which time the accused must either be remanded for further investigation or released. However, thousands of criminal suspects remained in detention without charge during the year, adding to already over-crowded prisons.

The law provides arrested persons the right to be released on bail, and prompt access to a lawyer; however, those arrested under special security legislation received neither bail nor prompt access to a lawyer in most cases. Court approval of a bail application is mandatory if police do not file charges within 60 to 90 days of arrest. In most cases, bail was set between $11 (Rs. 500) and $4,500 (Rs. 200 thousand).

In September 2004 the government repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and replaced it with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Nonetheless, SAHRDC reported that more than 1,000 persons remained in detention awaiting prosecution under lapsed special terrorism legislation, and that cases opened under POTA and Terrorism and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) continued through the judicial system. On November 8, the Supreme Court acquitted two men, Daljit Singh Bittoo and Gursharan Singh Gama, previously sentenced to life imprisonment under TADA in June 2004. The defense argued successfully that the deputy superintendent of police had a personal vendetta against the two men and used TADA to imprison them.

TADA courts curtailed many legal protections provided by other courts. For example, defense counsel was not permitted to see prosecution witnesses, who were kept behind screens while testifying in court, and confessions extracted under duress were admissible as evidence (see section 1.c.).

POTA contained a sunset feature, which gave the central POTA review committee one year to review all existing POTA cases. The government established three central review committees to review the cases registered under POTA. The committees were required to review all cases registered under POTA by September 20, but at year's end, numerous cases remained unreviewed. This clause also allowed the government to make new arrests under POTA, despite its repeal, if the arrests were tied to an existing POTA case. The government could issue a new indictment on a case opened five years earlier under POTA, even if the government was never associated with the case. It can also extend the one-year limit for reviews; however, at year's end, it had not done so. The law provides that the review committees constituted by the government shall review all cases registered under POTA by September 20. In June the POTA review committee reported that there were 11,384 persons wrongfully charged under POTA who instead should be charged under the regular law.

UAPA and POTA continued to be used to hold people in jail for extended periods prior to the filing of formal charges. Human rights groups reported that the revised UAPA contained important improvements over the POTA. For example, it does not allow coerced confessions to be admitted as evidence in court.

In February the NHRC announced comprehensive guidelines regarding arrest, which included establishing reasonable belief of guilt; avoiding detention if bail is an option; protecting the dignity of those arrested; not allowing public display or parading, and allowing access to a lawyer during interrogation. Police often ignored these guidelines.

In June Daljit Singh Bittu, president of the Shiromani Dal Khalsa, a group that supported a separate Sikh state, and an associate were sentenced to life imprisonment by a special TADA court for the killing of Ashok Bedi, son of a former police officer, in June 1986.

In September Simranjit Singh Mann, president of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Mann), was released from the Ludhiana central jail after 78 days in prison. He had been arrested for making pro-Khalistan statements in Sangrur, Punjab. Human rights activist and lawyer Ranjan Lakhanpal alleged that Punjab police beat and tortured Mann while in custody.

At year's end the Bihar government did not respond to a September 2004 petition urging the withdrawal of all TADA cases filed against landless laborers.

Police routinely resorted to arbitrary and incommunicado detention, denied detainees access to lawyers and medical attention, and used torture or ill treatment to extract confessions (see section 5.). Human rights experts claimed that discrimination and custodial torture of those too poor to afford legal assistance was common. During the year the media reported that lower caste individuals were more likely to be illegally detained than others. Human rights activists maintained that the government increasingly avoided prosecuting security officers involved in illegal conduct, by providing financial compensation to victims' families in lieu of punishment. In some instances victims or their families who distrusted the military judicial system petitioned to have their cases transferred to a civil court. The NHRC has no jurisdiction over any courts, including military courts.

During the year the media reported that 217 Muslims arrested in connection with the 2002 Tiffin bomb case, the 2003 killing of former Gujarat chief minister Haren Pandya, the 2003 Akshardham temple bombing, and the 2002 Godhra train arson case, remained in custody in Gujarat under POTA. On June 29, a special POTA court dismissed POTA charges related to the 2002 Tiffin Bomb case against Munawar Beg Mirza; however, he continued to be an accused in the same case under the penal code. In June the POTA review committee recommended that 131 of the Godhra accused not be charged under POTA. The Gujarat government rejected the recommendation, contending that there was clear evidence of conspiracy in the train arson.

Throughout the year authorities in Jammu and Kashmir repeatedly detained Kashmiri separatist leaders such as Shabir Shah, Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, Yasin Malik, Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), and Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Chairman of the hardline faction of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), for short periods of time ranging from several hours to one day, usually to prevent their participation in demonstrations, funerals, or other public events. For example in January, Mohammed Yasin Malik and Shabir Ahmed Shah were among 30 people detained in Baramuula while participating in a demonstration against civic elections. They were released later in the day.

There were several incidents during the year in which Tamil Nadu police arrested activists and demonstrators without a proper warrant. In September according to media reports, Chennai police arrested over three thousand activists belonging to the Communist Party of India (Marxist), including a state unit secretary and other legislators.

In September the Madras High Court ordered the Tamil Nadu chief of police to investigate the illegal detention and custodial torture of four persons allegedly taken into custody to pressure an associate to withdraw a writ petition against the state government. The high court judge granted bail to the four on September 14.

In August 2004 the home minister informed parliament that the POTA review committee had received 262 complaints during the year. Of these, the committee ruled in favor of the accused in 18 cases, rejected 33 complaints, and disposed of 10 for unspecified reasons. The remaining 201 remained pending at year's end.

The National Security Act (NSA) permits police to detain persons considered security risks anywhere in the country--except for Jammu and Kashmir--without charge or trial for as long as one year on loosely defined security reasons. State governments must confirm the detention order, which was reviewed by an advisory board of three high court judges within seven weeks of the arrest. NSA detainees were permitted visits by family members and lawyers, and must be informed of the grounds of their detention within 5 days (10 to 15 days in exceptional circumstances). According to press accounts, 32 persons were detained under the NSA in 2004.

Human rights groups alleged that the NSA allowed authorities to order preventive detention at their own behest after only a cursory review by an advisory board, and that no court would overturn such a decision.

The Public Safety Act (PSA), which applies only in Jammu and Kashmir, permits state authorities to detain persons without charge and judicial review for up to two years. During this time, detainees do not have access to family members or legal counsel. Between March and April, the PSA was invoked against 12 persons. The government estimated that approximately 600 persons were in custody under the PSA or related charges in January. In April two Kashmiri separatist leaders, Shabir Ahmad Khan and Firdous Ahmad Shah, were released after several months' detention under the PSA.

In September the government used the PSA to arrest Sayeda Assiya Andrabi, the head of the all-female Dukhtaran-e-Millat, and eight of her associates for her campaign against adultery, prostitution, and drug addiction. At year's end, she remained in pretrial detention.

During the year the Jammu and Kashmir government released 326 persons held under PSA since 2002.

In May according to press reports, two Maoist support organizations, the All India Peoples Resistance Forum (AIPRF) and the Struggling Forum for Peoples Resistance (SFPR), claimed the West Bengal state government illegally detained Maoist activists Sushil Roy and Patit Paban Haldar. The Maoist support organizations alleged that police arrested the 2 men on May 21 but did not produce them in court until 3 days later, violating their right to a court appearance within 24 hours after arrest. According to the two groups, over 700 suspected Maoists have been detained without charge during the year.

AFSPA remained in effect in Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and parts of Tripura, and a version of the law was in effect in Jammu and Kashmir. Under AFSPA, the government can declare any state or union territory a "disturbed area." This allows the security forces to fire on any person in order to "maintain law and order" and to arrest any person "against whom reasonable suspicion exists" without informing the detainee of the grounds for arrest. Security forces are also granted immunity from prosecution for acts committed under AFSPA.

In February the Tis Hazari Court in New Delhi dropped a case filed under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) against 8 people booked 14 years ago for allegedly stealing classified papers from a government press in Ranchi, Bihar. The press also reported that 28 people remained in Delhi's Tihar jail under the OSA, and that some of their cases have been in the courts for 15 years.

In June a committee created by the Home Ministry to review AFSPA submitted its report, and its recommendations were under review at year's end. Press reports indicated that the review committee recommended the repeal of AFSPA and suggested the incorporation of its provisions into the UAPA.

The law provides a person in detention the right to a prompt trial; however, due to a severe backlog, this was not the case in practice.

There were no reports of political detainees during the year, although the government detained hundreds of suspected terrorists, insurgents, and separatists. In November the government released 44 of these detainees following a meeting between the prime minister and leaders of the APHC in New Delhi.

As a result of severe overloading of the courts, thousands of persons awaiting trial spent longer in prison than the maximum sentences for the crimes for which they were charged. In July 2004 the Ministry of Law and Justice reported that there were 29,622 cases pending before the Supreme Court, and 3,269,224 before the state high courts. The NHRC reported in 2004 that 75 percent of the country's inmates, some 217,659 persons, were in pretrial detention. Human rights groups claimed that because of the extensive case backlog and rampant corruption the judicial system no longer met its constitutional mandate.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected this provision in practice; however, serious problems remained. In Jammu and Kashmir, members of the judiciary were subject to threats and intimidation by insurgents and terrorists.

The judicial system is headed by a Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over constitutional issues, and includes the court of appeals and lower courts. Lower courts hear criminal and civil cases and send appeals to the court of appeals. The president appoints judges, who may serve until the age of 62 on state high courts and 65 on the Supreme Court.

Trial Procedures

The criminal procedure code provides that trials be conducted publicly, except in proceedings involving official secrets, trials in which statements prejudicial to the safety of the state might be made, or under provisions of special security legislation. Sentences must be announced publicly, and defendants have the right to choose counsel independent of the government. There are effective channels for appeal at most levels of the judicial system, and the state provides free legal counsel to indigent defendants. Defendants were allowed access to relevant government-held evidence in most civil and criminal cases; however, the government had the right to withhold information and did so in cases it considered sensitive. In 2003 the Delhi High Court issued new witness protection guidelines to reduce the number of witnesses who recanted their testimony under threat from defendants.

There was continued concern about the failure of the Gujarat government to arrest and convict those responsible for the widespread communal violence in 2002 following the burning in Godhra of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express train, in which 59 men, women, and children died. In the days following the train burning, Hindu mobs killed hundreds of Muslims, displaced tens of thousands, and destroyed property.

In many cases, attempts to hold perpetrators of the Gujarat violence accountable were hampered by the allegedly defective manner in which police recorded complaints. Victims related that police refused to register their complaints, recorded the details in such a way as to lead to lesser charges, omitted the names of prominent people involved in attacks, and did not arrest suspects, particularly supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). According to an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court in January 2004 by the Gujarat government, of 4,252 complaints filed, 2,032 were closed without action, even though abuses were substantiated. In August 2004 the Supreme Court instructed the Gujarat High Court to appoint a committee of high-level police officials to re-examine the 2,032 closed cases and determine whether any should be reopened. The media reported that officials attempting to conduct a serious investigation into the incidents were promptly removed from the case. At year's end, no report specifying the number of cases that should be re-opened had been submitted to the Supreme Court.

The Gujarat government claimed that police had re-opened investigations against 5,384 people in the city of Ahmedabad and 24,683 people in the state as a whole. However, analysis by the Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat revealed that only a small number of these investigations actually led to convictions. As of May there were only 2 convictions out of 217 cases concluded in the lower courts of Gujarat. The Gujarat government's legal department advised against appealing most of the acquittals in the remaining cases. As a result, only a handful of cases were appealed to higher courts. On December 14, the Godhra fast-track court sentenced 11 persons to life imprisonment for killing 11 members of a minority community in Panchmahal district of Gujarat.

At year's end, the special court in Mumbai had not ruled in the Best Bakery case.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that Hindu extremists threatened and intimidated victims, witnesses, and human rights activists attempting to prosecute those who committed crimes during the 2002 Gujarat riots. It asserted that instead of pursuing the perpetrators of violence, the Gujarat government nurtured a climate of fear. The report alleged that the Gujarat government launched selective tax probes against some Islamic organizations to pressure Muslim witnesses to withdraw murder and arson charges against Hindu nationalists. The Gujarat government denied the charge.

According to the Home Ministry, as of March there were 1,700 fast track courts in the country. Fast track courts concentrated on a specific type of case, allowing judges to develop expertise in a given area of law. These courts gave preference to cases pending for extended periods and often focused on civil issues. Court fees were generally lower for these courts, since the trials were shorter.

The government does not interfere in the personal status laws of minority communities, including those laws that discriminate against women. There are separate laws for Muslims and Hindus on a number of issues. For example, Muslim personal status law governs family law, inheritance, and divorce (see section 5, Women).

Unlike in previous years, court was regularly in session and the judicial system began to normalize in Jammu and Kashmir. Nevertheless, the judicial system was hindered because of judicial tolerance of the government's anti-insurgent actions and because of the frequent refusal by security forces to obey court orders.

Due in part to intimidation by militants and terrorists, courts in Jammu and Kashmir were often reluctant to hear cases involving insurgent and terrorist crimes and failed to act expeditiously, if at all, on habeas corpus cases. In March 2004, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed announced that there were 533 persons of unidentified ethnicity, 361 Kashmiris, and 172 foreigners in custody. During the year, the government released 85 detainees.

Political Prisoners

While the government maintained that there were no political prisoners, the APHC claimed there were approximately 500 political prisoners in Jammu and Kashmir, and human rights activists based in the state placed the number at 150, although among these were persons whom the government claimed had engaged in violent acts.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The law prohibits such actions, and the government generally respected these prohibitions in practice; however, at times the authorities infringed upon them. Police must obtain warrants to conduct searches and seizures, except in cases where such actions would cause undue delay. Police must justify such warrantless searches in writing to the nearest magistrate with jurisdiction over the offense. The authorities in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Assam have special powers to search and arrest without a warrant.

The Information Technology Act grants police power under certain circumstances to search premises and arrest individuals without a warrant. The act specifies a one-year sentence for persons who fail to provide information to the government on request and a five-year sentence for transmitting "lascivious" material (see section 2.a.). The act also requires Internet cafes to monitor Internet use and inform the authorities of offenses (see section 2.a.).

The Indian Telegraph Act authorizes the surveillance of communications, including monitoring telephone conversations and intercepting personal mail, in cases of public emergency, or "in the interest of the public safety or tranquility." The central government and every state government used these powers during the year.

Although the telegraph act gives police the power to tap phones to aid an investigation, they were not allowed to use such evidence in court. The UAPA allows such evidence to be used in terrorist cases, and some human rights activists noted that the new UAPA ordinance confers additional powers on police to use intercepted communications as evidence in terrorism cases. While there were elaborate legal safeguards to prevent police from encroaching on personal privacy, there were no such protections in terrorist cases.

Eight states (Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Maharashtra) have enacted two-child laws for village council members. The laws provide government jobs and subsidies to those who have no more than two children and sanctions against those who do. For example, in 2004 village council members in Chhattisgarh who violated this prohibition reportedly were dismissed from their positions. National health officials in New Delhi noted that the central government was unable to regulate state decisions on population issues.

g. Use of Excessive Force and Other Abuses in Internal Conflicts

Security force personnel enjoyed extraordinary powers under the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, which includes the authority to shoot suspected lawbreakers on sight and destroy structures suspected of harboring insurgents or arms.

There were continuing reports of civilians killed in crossfires in Jammu and Kashmir during the year. In February two insurgents attacked the divisional commissioner's office in Srinagar, killing five. Both insurgents were killed after a four-hour gun battle. On November 2, militants in Srinigar killed 10 people and wounded 15 others in a car bomb attack. On November 14, also in Srinagar, insurgents killed three bystanders during an attack on a police vehicle.

In January Jammu and Kashmir Finance and Law Minister Muzaffar Hussain Beig escaped a militant attack while attending an election rally in Baramulla, north Kashmir. Also in January, militants attacked People's Democratic Party (PDP) President Mehbooba Mufti and Urban Development Minister Ghulam Hassan Mir while they were campaigning in Khalilpora. Insurgents killed six persons and injured three dozen in pre-election related violence.

Terrorists and militants operating in Rajouri, Poonch, Udhampur, and Doda areas of Jammu and Kashmir repeatedly targeted the minority Hindu community, stabbing and killing entire families at a time in numerous incidents throughout the year. For example on July 29, insurgents stabbed and killed a Hindu woman and five Hindu men in Jammu and Kashmir's Rajouri district after segregating them from Muslims in the village. On August 27, in two separate attacks, insurgents killed five members of a family in Mehrot and two Hindu priests at a temple in Dundak, Poonch district.

Civic elections were held in February in Jammu and Kashmir. Despite threats and boycott calls, polling was largely peaceful, and the army and police presence was not overbearing. After the declaration of results, terrorists killed two newly elected members and several of their relatives and friends. Several elected counselors resigned following threats from terrorists. Insurgents killed an official in Kulgam, a National Conference counselor in Ikhrajpora, and a PDP counselor in Beerwah, Budgam district.

Members of the security forces continued to abduct and kill suspected insurgents, and security forces were not held adequately accountable for their actions. Reliable data on such cases were difficult to obtain.

According to credible reports, in addition to harassment during searches and arbitrary arrests (see section 1.d.), security forces abducted and sometimes used civilians as human shields and while clearing minefields. Such abuses occurred mostly in the Kupwara and Doda districts. On January 25, nine civilians were killed when an army team opened fire on a remote area of Assam's Kamrup district, which they believed was an insurgent hideout.

Unlike in previous years, tension along the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir was minimal. The Home Ministry reported no cases of artillery shelling, mortar, or small arms fire across the LOC or on the Siachen glacier during the year.

During the year insurgents and terrorists committed political killings, kidnappings, and rapes of politicians and civilians (see sections 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c.), engaged in extortion, and carried out acts of random terror that killed hundreds of Kashmiris. In May Attiqullah Shan, nephew of Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, was shot and killed in Anantnag district. No group claimed responsibility for the attack. Killings of security force members by insurgents and terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir declined to 330 for the year, according to home ministry statistics. As of August 15, the Jammu and Kashmir police claimed fighting in Kashmir had resulted in the deaths of 167 security forces, 359 civilians, and 622 insurgents.

In January in Srinagar, a 25-hour gun battle between insurgents and security forces in the passport office complex resulted in the deaths of two security officers and two insurgents and the wounding of eight security personnel.

In March in Rajouri district, insurgents kidnapped a civilian who was later killed in a crossfire between security forces and the insurgents.

In April insurgents attacked the tourist reception center complex in Srinagar. Both insurgents were killed in the subsequent gun battle, and seven government employees were injured.

In Manipur an insurgency involving up to 19 militant groups resulted in the deaths of 133 civilians, 46 security forces, and 135 insurgents, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal. For example, on January 26, suspected United National Liberation Front members triggered two explosions in the Chandrapur village of Imphal, injuring seven persons, including two security force members. On February 17, separatists killed five Assam Rifles personnel and injured two others in an ambush at Kumbi in the Bishnupur district. In a separate attack the next day, insurgents attacked a senior police officer but wounded his escort. On July 10, People's Liberation Army members detonated a bomb, killing three Assam Rifles personnel and wounding seven persons, including two civilians in the Waithout area of Thoubal district in Assam.

According to SATP.org, separatists in Nagaland killed nine civilians during the year. Human rights groups observed that violence persisted despite ongoing talks between separatist groups and state government officials and an April 2004 government ceasefire. Factional violence between the National Socialist Council of Nagaland Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland Khaplang (NSCN-K) continued during the year, resulting in numerous deaths. For example, NSCN-K members killed two NSCN-IM cadres in a February 25 attack at the Athibung area of Peren district. On March 12, NSCN-IM cadres attacked the Cease Fire Supervisory Board office of the NSCN-K located in Mon town, killing one NSCN-K cadre and wounding two others. On June 28, an elderly woman and two insurgents reportedly were injured in a factional clash between NSCN-IM and NSCN-K militants in the Athibung area of Peren district.

In July according to the home ministry, government representatives and NSCN-IM leaders met in Amsterdam and agreed to extend the ceasefire for six months starting in August. The government and NSCN-IM held meetings in December to negotiate another extension.

The killing of civilians by Naxalites (Maoist insurgents) in Andhra Pradesh increased dramatically during the year. According to Andhra Pradesh police, Naxalites killed 123 civilians including political leaders, and 16 policemen between January and July. Police killed 84 Naxalites during the same period.

In March Maoist rebels killed eight persons in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. After the Naxalites shot and killed Congress legislator Chittam Narsi Reddy in Mahbubnagar district on August 15, the state government imposed a ban on the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and seven Naxalite front organizations. After the ban, police arrested Vara Vara Rao, who had acted as the Communist Party of India (CPI) emissary in earlier peace talks. Human rights activists claimed that the escalation in violence began in January when police shot and killed three Naxalites in Prakasan district. Reports of encounter killings were highest in Nizamabad district, where police shot and killed nine Naxalites. In September Maoists guerrillas killed 10 persons in a midnight attack in the Ranchi area of Jharkhand. According to SATP, on September 12, cadres of the CPI-M killed 17 civilians at Belwadari village in the Giridih district, Jharkhand. An estimated 510 persons, including 210 policemen, have been killed in the last five years in Maoist/Naxalite violence according to the Indo-Asian News Service.

Insurgents also targeted government officials. On February 13, insurgents ambushed an advance security party of the Manipur chief minister, Okram Ibobi Singh, at Oksu, 8 miles from Imphal; however, no loss of life or injuries were reported. On February 17, insurgents injured three police officers at Naran Sena village. On May 26, ULFA insurgents killed Congress party official Amrit Dutta in Jorhat district of Assam.

Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice, with some limitations. Under the Official Secrets Act, the government may restrict publication of sensitive stories or suppress criticism of its policies, but no cases of government suppression were reported during the year.

Designed to be a self-regulating mechanism for the press, the Press Council is a statutory body of journalists, publishers, academics, and politicians, with a government-appointed chairman, that investigates complaints of irresponsible journalism and sets a code of conduct for publishers. This code includes a commitment not to publish stories that might incite caste or communal violence. The council publicly criticized newspapers or journalists it believed had broken the code of conduct, but its findings carried no legal weight.

A vigorous press reflected a wide variety of political, social, and economic beliefs. Independent newspapers and magazines regularly published and television channels regularly broadcast investigative reports including allegations of government wrongdoing, and the press generally promoted human rights and criticized perceived government lapses. Most print media were privately owned. In the electronic media, 80 percent of the television channels were privately owned. The law does not permit privately owned radio stations to broadcast news, leaving only government-controlled radio stations free to report news over the radio.

With the exception of radio, foreign media was, for the most part, allowed to operate freely, and private satellite television was distributed widely by cable or satellite dish, providing serious competition for Doordarshan, the government-owned television network. While government television frequently was accused of manipulating the news in the government's favor, some privately owned satellite channels often promoted the platforms of political parties their owners supported.

The government often held foreign satellite broadcasters, rather than domestic cable operators, liable under civil law for what it deemed objectionable content on satellite channels--notably, tobacco and alcohol advertisements and adult content.

AM radio broadcasting remained a government monopoly. Private FM radio station ownership was legal, but licenses only authorized entertainment and educational content. In June the government formally cleared the domestic publication of foreign newspapers and periodicals, including the International Herald Tribune, although imported copies of such periodicals had been freely available for years. However, local editions of foreign press were still prohibited: country-specific editions were required to be published by a local company to comply with foreign direct investment regulations that stipulated a ceiling of 26 percent for news organizations.

The authorities generally allowed foreign journalists to travel freely in Jammu and Kashmir, where they regularly spoke with separatist leaders and filed reports on a range of issues, including government abuses. In October 2004 the government permitted the first delegation, in more than 50 years, of Pakistani journalists to visit Jammu and Kashmir. The correspondents, on a trip sponsored by the South Asia Free Media Association, had access to the entire spectrum of government and separatist opinion.

The Newspapers Incitements to Offenses Act remained in effect in Jammu and Kashmir. Under the act, a district magistrate may prohibit the publication of material likely to incite murder or any act of violence; however, newspapers in Srinagar reported in detail on alleged human rights abuses by the government and regularly published separatist Kashmiri groups' press releases.

There were no developments in the September 2004 arrest under the Official Secrets Act of a photojournalist with an Urdu newspaper in Srinagar for passing sensitive defense-related material to Pakistan.

No action was taken against the assailants who in June 2004 attacked the Mumbai office of Aapla Mahanagar or against those responsible for attacking newspaper editor Sajid Rashid in August 2004.

In July the Committee to Protect Journalists reported that government agents harassed and threatened South Asia Tribune correspondent Arun Kumar Rajnath. On July 27, the Tribune detailed a series of intimidating phone calls and emails Rajnath received over the previous two months. The caller, identified as an intelligence agent, allegedly offered Rajnath kickbacks in return for publishing articles unfavorable to neighboring countries.

In August Punjab police arrested Indian Express correspondent Gautam Dheer. The police failed to inform him of the charge, denied him access to a lawyer, and withheld information about his whereabouts. Police arrested Dheer while he was investigating alleged malfeasance by the inspector general of police, Sumedh Singh Saini. The chief minister of Punjab, Amrinder Singh, ordered Dheer's release on bail and began a probe against the special investigating team that arrested him. Lawyers for Human Rights International petitioned the NHRC, demanding a probe into the arrest, but at year's end, the NHRC had not taken up the case.

In September Reporters Without Borders claimed there was increased violence against the media, and systematic attacks on the freedom of the press during the year. The organization reported that most attacks took place in the northern part of the country. For example, on August 26, individuals attacked Shikha Das, a reporter in Chhattisgarh. Her attackers allegedly were members of a regionally prominent family, which Das had linked to trafficking in persons. The police initially refused to register her complaint and did so only after a delegation of local journalists went to the police station.

No arrests were made in the August 2004 attack against the offices of Dinamalar by members of the Pattali Makkal Katchi.

Violent intimidation of the press by militant and terrorist groups in Jammu and Kashmir caused significant self-censorship, according to journalists based in the state. During the year the threat of losing government revenue contributed to self-censorship by smaller media outlets that relied heavily on state government advertising for their survival.

In June the Shillong Press Corps in Meghalaya protested the harassment of journalists by police and the Meghalaya government. According to the press, on June 10, a group of plain-clothed policemen visited the office of The Meghalaya Guardian and interrogated senior journalists about a news item alleging that security forces had burned tribal houses. In addition, it was alleged that The Shillong Times editor received a midnight call from policemen attempting to interrogate him about the same news item. The issue was resolved informally after a press boycott of government programs led to a negotiated compromise.

On August 8, the Tamil Nadu government issued show cause notices against the editor and publisher of the Kumudham Reporter, a bi-weekly Tamil newspaper. The government charged the paper with "breach of privilege" for publishing two controversial articles.

The government maintained a list of banned books that may not be imported or sold in the country. In some cases, such as that involving Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, censors claimed the book aggravated communal tensions. In March 2004 the Maharashtra state government filed criminal charges against a foreign professor for making allegedly slanderous remarks in a book against Shivaji, a 17th century Marathi warrior, and his mother. The case remained open at year's end, and the Maharashtra state government continued to ban the book. On September 23, the Calcutta High Court removed the April 2004 West Bengal government ban on Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen's autobiography, Dwikhandita, Amaar Meyebela.

A government censorship board reviewed films before licensing them for distribution, censoring material it deemed offensive to public morals or communal sentiment.

The Informational Technology Act provides for censoring the Internet on public morality grounds, and defines "unauthorized access to certain types of electronic information" as a crime. According to Reporters Without Borders, this law theoretically allowed police to search the homes or offices of Internet users at any time without a warrant, but that claim has not been tested in court. The government retained the right to limit access to the Internet, specifically information deemed detrimental to national security.

In 2003 the Ministry of Human Resources Development (HRD) passed strict academic guidelines requiring all central universities to obtain HRD permission before organizing "all forms of foreign collaborations and other international academic exchange activities," including seminars, conferences, workshops, guest lectures, and research. These guidelines remained in force during the year.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The law provides for freedom of assembly and association, and the government generally respected this right in practice.

Freedom of Assembly

The authorities normally required permits and notification prior to holding parades or demonstrations, and local governments ordinarily respected the right to protest peacefully, except in Jammu and Kashmir, where the local government sometimes denied permits to separatist parties for public gatherings and detained separatists engaged in peaceful protest. During periods of civil tension, the authorities may ban public assemblies or impose a curfew under the Criminal Procedure Code.

In May police killed a nine-year-old girl while attempting to disperse a clash between villagers over a graveyard in Dardpora, Srinagar. As crowds gathered over a disputed fence erected around a graveyard, police intervened and fired upon the mob. The deputy commissioner ordered a magisterial inquiry into the death, which remained open at year's end.

In June police killed a 14-year-old boy in Dholpur, Rajasthan, when they fired into an angry mob protesting the death of a person in custody. The state government paid approximately $2,300 (Rs. 100 thousand) in compensation to the next of kin and ordered an inquiry into the incident.

In June one person was reported killed when police in Keonjhar district in Orissa fired on a crowd of approximately 500 demonstrators, led by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, who stormed a police station protesting the delay in the arrest of the molestor of a minor girl.

On August 16, in Maharajganj, Siwan district in Bihar, two people were killed after police opened fire on locals protesting the removal of a bus stand following the death of a child in a bus accident.

On August 19, in Churachandpur, Manipur, members of the Zomi Students' Federation clashed with police during a demonstration demanding, among other matters, compensation for civilians killed in a landmine explosion and improvement in the educational infrastructure. The clash resulted in injuries to a number of students and police and the destruction of police property and vehicles. After police arrested six demonstrators, hundreds of students stormed the police station, demanding the unconditional release of those arrested. Demonstrators then converged on the deputy commissioner's residence, setting fire to a government vehicle. Guards fired at the mob, injuring three. Police released the arrested students later in the day.

Freedom of Association

The law provides for the freedom of association, and the government generally respected this right in practice.

NGOs must secure approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs before organizing international conferences. Human rights groups contended that this provided the government with substantial political control over the work of NGOs and their freedom of assembly and association. NGOs alleged that some members from abroad were denied visas arbitrarily.

c. Freedom of Religion

The law provides for secular government and the protection of religious freedom, and the central government generally respected these provisions in practice; however, it sometimes did not act effectively to counter societal attacks against religious minorities and attempts by state and local governments to limit religious freedom. This failure resulted in part from legal constraints inherent in the country's federal structure, and in part from shortcomings in the law enforcement and judicial systems. There is no state religion, although the majority of citizens are followers of Hinduism, and this at times adversely affected the religious freedom of others. Some Hindu hardliners interpreted ineffective investigation and prosecution of their attacks on religious minorities as evidence that they could commit such violence with impunity.

During the year there were no significant changes in the status of religious freedom, and problems remained in some areas. Attacks against religious minorities persisted. No new anticonversion laws were enacted during the year. Hindutva, the politicized inculcation of Hindu religious and cultural norms to the exclusion of others, remained a subject of national debate and influenced some governmental policies and societal attitudes.

Human rights groups and others suggested that political links between the BJP and hard-line Hindu groups such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) influenced some state BJP governments' inadequate responses to acts of violence against religious minorities.

Legally mandated benefits were assigned to certain groups, including some groups defined by their religion. For example, educational institutions administered by minority religions were allowed to reserve seats for their co-religionists even when they received government funding. Benefits accorded dalits (formerly known as "untouchables") were revoked once they converted to Christianity or Islam, but not to Buddhism or Sikhism, ostensibly because once a dalit converted to Christianity or Islam, he would no longer technically be a dalit, although such caste distinctions informally existed in both religions.

The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act of 1988 criminalizes the use of any religious site for political purposes or the use of temples to harbor persons accused or convicted of crimes. While specifically designed to deal with Sikh places of worship in Punjab, the law applies to all religious sites. The Religious Buildings and Places Act requires a state government-endorsed permit before construction of any religious building. The act's supporters claimed that its aim was to curb the use of Muslim institutions by Islamic extremist groups, but the measure became a controversial political issue among religious Muslims.

In 2003 Gujarat passed a "Freedom of Religion" bill that provides penalties of up to three years in prison and a fine of $1,000 (Rs. 40 thousand) for the use of allurement or force for religious conversion. Under the act, government officials must assess conversions, and the district magistrate must give prior permission. Human rights advocates believed that the law was meant to make it more difficult for poor persons, mistreated minorities, and others ostracized under the caste system to convert from Hinduism to another religion. At year's end, the rules and regulations for the Gujarat bill remain unframed, rendering the legislation inactive. Anticonversion laws have been in effect in Madhya Pradesh and Orissa since the 1960s, and laws against forcible conversions exist in Andhra Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh. There were no reported convictions under these laws.

There is no national law barring a citizen or foreigner from professing or propagating his or her religious beliefs; however, the law prohibits visitors in the country on tourist visas from engaging in religious proselytization without first obtaining permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs. During the year, state officials continued to refuse permits to foreign missionaries to enter some northeastern states, on the grounds of political instability in the region. Missionaries and religious organizations must comply with the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) of 1976, which restricts funding from abroad. The government can ban a religious organization if it violates the FCRA, provokes intercommunity friction, or has been involved in terrorism or sedition.

On June 11, residents of a slum in a Mumbai suburb assaulted four missionaries leading a vacation bible school. The four departed the country on June 12. No formal charges were filed for the assault or against the missionaries for violating the FCRA. On June 13, four other missionaries with tourist rather than missionary visas were deported for conducting religious activities.

The legal system accommodated minority religions' personal status laws, and there were different personal laws for different religious communities. Religion-specific laws pertain in matters of marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. The personal status laws of the religious communities sometimes discriminated against women (see section 5). Some laws, such as the repealed POTA, while not specifically written to target a minority group, affected particular ethnic or religious groups. A July 2004 study carried out by the NGO People's Tribunal in 10 states found that 99.9 percent of those arrested under POTA were Muslims.

Societal Abuses and Discrimination

Tensions between Muslims and Hindus, and between Hindus and Christians, continued during the year. Attacks on religious minorities occurred in several states, which brought into question the government's ability to prevent sectarian and religious violence or prosecute those responsible for it. For example, in February two Christian pastors were killed in Orissa within a two-week period. On February 16, suspected Hindu radicals killed Gilbert Raj, a Baptist pastor, who had worked in the state for 13 years. Ten days later, unknown assailants stabbed and killed Pentecostal pastor Dilip Dalai. No charges were filed in either case. Muslims in some Hindu-dominated areas continued to experience intimidation and reported a lack of government protection, resulting in their inability to work, reside, or send their children to schools. In some areas, primarily in Gujarat, Hindutva groups displayed signs stating "Hindus only" and "Muslim-free area." There were also allegations of prohibitions on the Muslim call to prayer.

In May the Orissa High Court reduced Dara Singh's death sentence to to life imprisonment. Singh was the prime suspect in the 1999 murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons. The court acquitted the other 11 accused in the crime. On August 29, the CBI appealed the high court's reduction of Singh's sentence to the Supreme Court and urged the reimposition of capital punishment. The Supreme Court has yet to hear the case.

Christian organizations also claimed that BJP officials in some localities did not restrain the illegal activities of radical Hindu groups. The All-India Catholic Union (AICU) expressed concern over growing anti-Christian violence in several states ruled by the BJP. The AICU claimed that the perpetrators were members of fundamentalist groups affiliated with the RSS. For example on April 3, a local newspaper reported that senior BJP leader Dilip Singh Judeo threatened Christian missionaries during a public address, stating that "if Christian missionaries don't stop converting people, we will take up arms." In June allegedly in order to prevent violence, the Jodhpur district administration in Rajasthan rescinded permission for the Pentecostal Church of God to hold a gathering in the city after members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal protested, claiming that the church was converting Hindu children.

Hindu organizations frequently alleged that Christian missionaries forced or lured Hindus, particularly those of lower castes, to convert to Christianity. In Christian majority areas, there were occasional reports that Christians persecuted members of regional minorities.

Press reports indicate that following the December 2004 tsunami, a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused to provide aid to Hindus in a southern Tamil Nadu village because they would not convert.

The Gujarat government took no action to arrest and convict those responsible for the widespread communal violence that occurred in 2002 following the burning of the Sabarmati Express train in Godhra (see section 1.e.).

There were no reports of anti-Semitic acts during the year against the country's small Jewish community.

For a more detailed discussion, see the 2005 International Religious Freedom Report.

d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation

The law provides for freedom of movement, and the government generally respected this in practice; however, in certain border areas the government required special permits.

Security forces often searched and questioned occupants at vehicle checkpoints, mostly in troubled areas in the Kashmir Valley or after major terrorist attacks. The government also expanded construction of a 330-mile security fence along the LOC in Jammu and Kashmir, causing occasional difficulties for local residents, as it cut through some villages and agricultural lands. By the end of the year, fence construction was nearing completion. The government's purpose for the security fence was to stop arms smuggling and infiltration by Pakistani-based terrorists or insurgents. The government attributed a decline in successful insurgent crossings during the year in part to the fence.

Under the Passports Act of 1967, the government may deny a passport to any applicant who "may or is likely to engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India." The government used this provision to prohibit foreign travel by some government critics, especially those advocating Sikh independence and members of the separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir. Citizens from Jammu and Kashmir faced extended delays, often up to two years, before the Ministry of External Affairs would issue or renew their passports. Government officials regularly demanded bribes before issuing passports, especially for those from Jammu and Kashmir that required special clearances. Applicants born in Jammu and Kashmir–-even the children of serving military officers born during their parents' deployment in the state-–were subjected to additional scrutiny and police clearances prior to passport issuance.

Unlike in previous years, there were no reports of the government using the issuance of passports or travel documents to restrict travel of separatist leaders in Jammu and Kashmir.

There was no law banning forced exile; however, there were no reports of forced exile during the year.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, at least 650 thousand persons were displaced due to conflicts in Jammu and Kashmir, Gujarat, and the northeast (see sections 1.a., 1.c., and 1.g.). There was no progress on the plight of approximately 300 thousand Kashmiri Pandits (Hindu Brahmins) forced to flee the Kashmir Valley in the early 1990s after the outbreak of separatist violence. The Pandits remained in refugee camps in Jammu and New Delhi, some 15 years after the start of the insurgency, and were unable to return to their homes in Jammu and Kashmir because of safety concerns, including the on-going killings of Hindus in the state.

According to home ministry statistics, there were 55,476 registered Kashmiri Pandit families living in Jammu, 34,088 in Delhi, and 19,338 in other states receiving government support. Government-managed camps housed 5,778 families in Delhi and Jammu. The government provided monthly cash relief of $70 (Rs. three thousand) and basic dry rations to the 14,869 families in Jammu. In Delhi, authorities provided $75 (Rs. 3,200) to 4,100 families.

The Indo-American Kashmir Forum claimed there were 350 thousand internally displaced Pandits living outside the valley. In August 2004 the Jammu and Kashmir government announced plans to help displaced Kashmiri Pandits return to the valley, but at year's end, no Kashmiri had done so.

More than 87 thousand persons lived under poor conditions in relief camps in Assam as a result of ongoing violence in the northeast. According to press reports, nearly two thousand families who were riot victims from the Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, and Dhubri districts in Assam awaited rehabilitation grants sanctioned by the state government following the 1993-99 riots in these areas. An NGO reported that the state government released part of the grant during the year. The government also provided assistance to IDPs and allowed them access to NGO and human rights organizations during the year. There were no reports that the government attacked or forcibly resettled IDPs. There were no reports of government programs specifically designed to facilitate resettlement.

Protection of Refugees

The law does not provide for the granting of asylum in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol, and the government has not established a system for providing protection to refugees or asylum seekers. The government provided temporary protection to certain individuals who may not qualify as refugees under the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. According to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), at the end of May, there were 11,124 registered refugees in the country. UNHCR reported during the year that the government hosted over 250 thousand unregistered refugees from Sri Lanka, Burma, and Tibet.
Since 1960, the government hosted approximately 110 thousand de facto refugees from Tibet.

At year's end, Nepal Communist Party leader C.P. Gajurel remained in jail in Chennai.

The government generally denied NGOs and the office of the UNHCR direct access to refugee camps, particularly in Mizoram, but in Tamil Nadu, UNHCR was given access and maintained a local office. The UNHCR had no formal status, but the government permitted its staff access to refugees living in urban centers. The government did not formally recognize UNHCR grants of refugee status, although it provided "residential permits" to many Afghans and Burmese. The government considered Tibetans and Sri Lankans in refugee camps to be refugees, and provided assistance to them, but since it regarded most other groups, especially Bangladeshi refugees, as economic migrants, it did not provide them with aid. However, in recent years, a number of court rulings extended protection to refugees whom the government had formerly considered economic migrants. During the year, the UN high commissioner for refugees was not invited and did not visit the country.

The government permitted recognized refugees to work, and the state and central governments paid for the education of refugee children and provided limited welfare benefits.

Conditions in the Tamil refugee camps were generally acceptable, although much of the housing was badly deteriorated. The UNHCR continued to meet outside the camps with Tamil refugees considering voluntary repatriation. The NGO Organization for Eelam Refugee Rehabilitation had regular access to the camps during the year. The number of "special camps" which house suspected members of the Libertation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) was reduced to one camp. As of November 1, only 11 refugees remained in the single camp.

Those living in the country not formally recognized as refugees included some 80 thousand Chakmas and approximately 200 thousand Santhals, both from Bangladesh, who remained in Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Assam, respectively, as well as Afghans, Iraqis, and Iranians without valid national passports. The government either chose not to deport them, issue them renewable residence permits, or ignored their status. Due to financial and other reasons, many refugees were unable or unwilling to obtain or renew their national passports and were unable to regularize their status.

In 2004 the UNHCR assisted in the return of three thousand refugees from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka.

Ethnic Chins from Burma were among the non-recognized refugees in the northeastern states. An estimated 40 thousand to 50 thousand Chins lived and worked illegally in Mizoram. NGOs estimated that during the year 10 thousand Chins with alleged ties to Burmese insurgent groups were expelled to Burma, where the military government reportedly jailed them. Mizoram human rights groups estimated that some 31 thousand Reangs, a tribal group from Mizoram displaced by sectarian conflict, remained in six camps in North Tripura. Conditions in these camps were poor, and the Tripura government asked the central government to allot funds for their care. In 2004 Reang leaders in the camps pressed for reserved jobs, education benefits, and a comprehensive rehabilitation package. The Mizoram government rejected the demands, maintaining that only 16 thousand of the refugees had a valid claim to residence. After several rounds of negotiations, the Mizoram government and Reang-dominated Bru National Liberation Front insurgents signed a peace accord in June. Mizoram also agreed to take back Reangs who had fled to Tripura to escape the conflict.

In January the Supreme Court ordered the Ministry of Home Affairs, the election commission, and the governments of Mizoram and Tripura to resettle approximately 40 thousand displaced Reangs and add them to the electoral rolls.

Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government

The law provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully, and citizens exercised this right in practice through periodic, free, and fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage.

Elections and Political Participation

The government changed hands following free and fair national parliamentary elections in April and May 2004 in which approximately 675 million citizens participated. The country has a democratic, parliamentary system of government, with representatives elected in multiparty elections. Parliament sits for five years unless dissolved earlier for new elections, except under constitutionally defined emergency situations. Citizens elected state governments at regular intervals except in states under president's rule.

Election-related violence occurred during the year. In February Naxalite insurgents killed seven policemen and polling officials in Palamu, Jharkhand, on the eve of the first state assembly elections.

Also in February Maoist rebels killed 11 persons in the first phase and 10 persons in the final phase of state assembly elections on Bihar and Jharkhand. Maoists beheaded one person in Giridih in Jharkhand for defying the Maoist call for a boycott.

According to the Jammu and Kashmir chief secretary, there were 109 incidents of violence in the state during the campaigning and voting for the 2004 parliamentary elections in April and May in which 31 civilians and six members of the security forces were killed, and 261 persons injured. In April 2004 the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) distributed hand-written notes ordering residents in parts of the Kashmir valley not to participate in elections. JeM also demanded that Kashmiris not work on public works projects and support locally organized strikes. In April 2004 terrorists cut off the ears of a man in Udhampur for voting in the polls. In a similar incident in Pulwama, members of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba cut off the finger of a villager because he had voted (voters' fingers were stained with ink after they cast their ballots).

There were numerous instances of police or security force interference with election-related activity in 2004. In Srinagar the chairman of the JKLF, Mohammad Yasin Malik, and the president of the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, Shabir Ahmad Shah, were among six separatist leaders detained by police for peacefully campaigning against the 2004 parliamentary elections in Baramulla district in northern Kashmir. Police detained these persons and activists from other groups on a regular basis prior to el toctions prevent them from campaigning against voting on the grounds that their activities would disturb the peace. As a rule, the periods of detention were short, and detainees were quickly released.

There were 69 women in the 783-seat national legislature, and 7 women in the cabinet of ministers. Numerous women were represented in all major parties in the national and state legislatures. Constitutional amendments passed in 1992 reserved 33 percent of seats for women in elected village councils (Panchayats).

The constitution reserved seats in parliament and state legislatures for scheduled tribes and scheduled castes in proportion to their population (see section 5). Indigenous persons actively participated in national and local politics.

Government Corruption and Transparency

Corruption was endemic in the executive and legislative branches of government. Transparency International determined that corruption was "all-pervasive" in the country. Election campaigns for parliament and state legislature seats were often funded with unreported money, and the government failed to combat the problem. In December the media highlighted one instance in which 11 members of parliament were videotaped accepting bribes.

On June 15, the government passed the Right to Information Act, mandating stringent penalties for failure to provide information or affecting its flow, and requiring agencies to self-reveal sensitive information. The government took extended periods of time to reply to information requests and often did not provide a response.

Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights

A wide variety of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction, investigating abuses and publishing their findings on human rights cases; however, in a few circumstances, groups faced restrictions. Some domestic NGOs and human rights organizations faced intimidation and harassment by local authorities. The government banned 355 NGOs during the year for misuse of funds. In April 2004 ACHR alleged harassment by local authorities, including denial of government services and numerous intimidating visits from the security forces. Other human rights activists and NGOs also complained of surprise visits and other harassment by police and government officials.

Human rights monitors in Jammu and Kashmir were unable to move around the state freely to document human rights violations due to fear of retribution by security forces and countermilitants. Several individuals involved in the documentation of violations in Jammu and Kashmir, including lawyers and journalists, were attacked in past years, and in some cases, killed. No such cases were reported during the year, although one monitor was killed during the 2004 polls by an improvised explosive device (see sections 1.a. and 1.g.).

International human rights organizations were restricted, and foreign human rights monitors historically have had difficulty obtaining visas to visit the country for investigation purposes. For example, in 2004 the government did not respond when AI's secretary general, Irene Khan Zubeida, applied for a visa. This was her third attempt, following unsuccessful visa applications in 2002 and 2003. AI claimed that the repeated visa denials may be linked to its demand for a retrial of the Best Bakery case and its report critical of state actions during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The main domestic human rights organization was the government-appointed NHRC. The NHRC acted independently of the government, often voicing strong criticism of government institutions and actions. However, some human rights groups claimed the NHRC was hampered by numerous institutional and legal weaknesses, including statutory regulations and operational inefficiencies. The NHRC did not have the statutory power to investigate allegations and could only request that a state government submit a report. State governments often ignored these requests and, if a report was submitted, state governments rarely carried out its recommendations. Human rights groups such as ACHR claimed that the NHRC did not register all complaints, dismissed cases on frivolous grounds, did not adequately protect complainants, and did not investigate cases thoroughly.

The NHRC was able to investigate cases against the military; however, it could only recommend compensation for victims of abuse, and NHRC recommendations were not binding. Many states had their own human rights commissions, and the NHRC only has jurisdiction if a state commission fails to investigate. Human rights groups alleged that state human rights commissions were more likely than the NHRC to be influenced by local politics and less likely to offer fair judgments.

According to Home Ministry statistics, the NHRC received 241,368 complaints and closed 186,433 cases. During the year, the Supreme Court at NHRC request ordered the retrial of 10 riot cases from Gujarat, in which the high court acquitted the accused (see section 1.e.).

The Home Minstry examined several amendments to the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act proposed by the NHRC seeking to increase its powers to investigate allegations of human rights violations by the armed forces. In the last 3 years, the NHRC investigated 289 such cases, resulting in action against 59 officials and the punishment of 19 offenders.

The 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act recommended that each state establish a human rights commission. As of October commissions existed in Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. The Jammu and Kashmir state legislature established a state human rights commission, but it had no authority to investigate alleged human rights violations committed by members of the security forces.

In April the Jammu and Kashmir human rights commission charged the state government, particularly the deputy commissioners, of diluting its authority and brushing aside its recommendations. The Jammu and Kashmir human rights commission received 305 complaints since its inception, regarding prisoner release, custodial deaths, and alleged security force harassment.

Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh have special courts to hear human rights cases. The Uttar Pradesh government continued to defy a court order to reactivate its special human rights court.

The NHRC was active duringear, highlighting human rights abuses throughout the country, and recommending compensation for victims of human rights abuses. For example, in July the NHRC recommended that the Haryana government conduct an independent investigation into police assaults on agitating workers at the Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India factory in Gurgaon. No action has been taken by year's end.

In June the NHRC represented five persons who had been jailed for more than 3 decades in Assam without trial (see section 1.c.).

In recent years the NHRC proposed and lobbied for schools to include a human rights course in their standard curricula, but at year's end no schools had implemented this suggestion. Several universities, however, introduced human rights courses into their curricula at the behest of the NHRC.

At year's end, the CCDP, a Punjab-based human rights organization, had not received an NHRC response to its report documenting 672 disappearance cases (see section 1.b.).
The Nanavati commission, tasked with conducting a re-inquiry into the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi, released its report in August. It cited several prominent Congress party leaders for complicity in the violence. The report highlighted law enforcement culpability in the deaths due to a deliberate lack of action and noted that only one policeman was convicted for committing atrocities during the riots, in which three thousand Sikhs were killed. Union minister Jagdish Tytler and Member of Parliament Sajjan Kumar were indicted in the report. Tytler resigned from parliament and Kumar resigned from the Delhi Rural Development Board after the report's release, but at year's end no formal punishment resulted from the report. The government set up two committees to provide compensation, promised by Prime Minister Singh to the victims' families.

At year's end, the two-member judicial commission created to investigate riot-related violence in Gujarat received an extension to complete its report.

Section 5 Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons

The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, place of birth, or social status, and government authorities worke