Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from MASUM concerning 
the gruesome murder of 21-year-old Babu Seikh on 22 April 2012 in yet another case of Border Security Forces (BSF) brutality in West Bengal, India. Torture, extrajudicial executions, religious discrimination and a culture of impunity are features of everyday life for Indians living near the Indo-Bangladesh border. Such acts violate a human being’s inherent and fundamental right to life, liberty and security of person. Such acts are oppressive, patently unjust and contemptible. We urge you to write in to appeal to the relevant authorities to take actions against the BSF personnel responsible for these crimes against humanity. In so doing, we express a hope that, despite the threatening fault lines along the face of India’s law enforcement and judiciary, India may yet undertake serious social and institutional reforms that will remove the vestiges of lawlessness in the land and bring her people a lasting peace.
CASE NARRATIVE:
Making bamboo baskets and other household items is the main occupation and source of income for the village of Khamarpara-Beledanga, but 21-year-old Mr Babu Seikh, who is from the Muslim community, worked the agrarian lands of others on subsistence wages. An inquiry undertaken by MASUM reveals the following facts concerning the events leading up to Babu’s death and the discovery of his murder.
At approximately 9am on 22 March 2012, Babu left his home for Mr Tutul Seikh’s agrarian land, which he had been tasked to work. The entire day passed and when he failed to return that night, his family became worried. In the morning on 23 March 2012, they went out to search for Babu, and later found out that Babu, along with Mr Tutul Seikh (son of Mr Faizuddin Seikh), Mr Riajul Shah (son of Mr Rezu Shah) and Mr Selim Shah (son of Mr Sourabh Shah), all residents of the same village, had been seen walking toward the char (marshland) the previous evening (i.e. 22 March) at about 7pm. While they were walking toward Rajanagar, six BSF personnel attached to the Char Rajanagar Camp of 91st Battalion of BSF began chasing them at Ashramtala Mahadev Ghat of Rajapur Gram Panchayet under Raningar Police Station. After hounding the four men a while, the BSF resorted to firing at them without warning. A bullet pierced the middle of the chest of the deceased, and the BSF continued firing upon the men. The BSF personnel then dragged the bullet riddled body of Babu to their vehicle and drove to Rajanagar Camp. Babu’s family maintains that the deceased was still alive and faced inhuman torture at Rajanagar Camp which later caused him to die. One of the witnesses to the above events (name withheld for the individual’s protection) informed MASUM that the witnesses were all so frightened by the incident that they dared not visit the Rajanagar Camp to even enquire about the victim’s whereabouts.
Babu’s father informed the police of Raninagar Police Station about the incident at 9am on 23 March 2012, upon which the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Raninagar Police Station, Mr Nilanjan Roy, went to Rajanagar Camp in a police jeep and recovered Babu’s body. The Raninagar Police Station soon labelled it a case of Unnatural Death, vide U/D (Unnatural Death) Case No. 04/12 dated 23 March 2012. The police later received a written complaint from the widow of the deceased, Ms. Banuara Bibi, and Raninagar Police Station Case 155/12 dated 12 March 2012 against unknown BSF personnel of 91st Battalion under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Later on that day Babu’s body was sent to Behrampur General Hospital in Murshidabad for a post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 24 March 2012 and the body was handed over to the family on the same day for the performance of funeral rites. Information concerning the whereabouts and physical condition of the other three men has not yet been uncovered.
The BSF violated specific rules laid out in the 1973 Criminal Procedures Code and constitutional rights of the individual to life and liberty. The six BSF personnel who had chased the four men and shot at them demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and for human lives. The six BSF personnel acted with complete impunity and unconscionable violence. They were in full control of the situation, even taking care to remove Babu’s body in an attempt to avoid discovery and prosecution. This also suggests that those BSF personnel knew what they were doing was wrong – and proceeded to do so anyway.
The BSF personnel failed to call in a doctor to examine the body of the victim. They also failed to report the incident to the police who had proper jurisdiction over the area. The village in which the four men resided was seven kilometres away from the actual Indo-Bangladesh border, which begs the question of what authority the BSF were acting under when they gave chase and fired at the four men. The BSF also did not subsequently make any complaint with the police against the deceased, which is not characteristic of the BSF in cases of extrajudicial killings by their personnel. As such, it is unclear if there were grounds at all for the chase and attack by the BSF.
The police personnel themselves did not discharge their duties fully. Although the report by Babu’s father was received and acted upon, and although Babu’s body had been brought back, the police of Raninagar did not call in doctor qualified in forensics to conduct a post-mortem. This information would have been vital in the prosecution of the BSF personnel involved. Further forensic work could have been done matching the bullets fired to the guns used by BSF personnel at Rajanagar Camp. Such a process places certain reasonable demands upon the BSF that should have been complied with all along. In this case, records of which weapons were issued to who (being able to match serial numbers to individuals), for example, would have increased the transparency and accountability with which the BSF operates. It would also have helped pinpoint the six individuals responsible for Babu’s murder. No magistrate was called for an inquiry into the case, making the victim’s family entirely reliant on the help of a police force that may be unwilling to pursue the matter. Finally, Babu’s family did not receive the post-mortem examination report. Not knowing the precise cause of death and not having any details of the physical condition Babu’s body was found in means that his family is unable to formally press charges against the BSF. Such deficiencies in investigative processes in turn maim the judicial processes that would have actually been able to deliver justice to Babu and his family.
The fact that the BSF recently issued a statement claiming increased self-restraint on the use of lethal weapons and attempts to minimise the loss of human lives flies in the face of what has happened to Babu. While the populace and other NGOs such as MASUM had welcomed such statements, such deception creates bitterness and disillusionment amongst the people the Force is designed to protect and only serves to erode its legitimacy. The “rogue” character of these paramilitary forces further reflects badly on the central government that continues to endorse, fund, and, at least theoretically, lead it. For such a well-established force to perpetrate such acts of cruelty is shocking, tragic and disgraceful. Such acts truly lower the morale of other individuals within the force who try to fulfil their proper duties in order to protect the people their comrades are hurting.
The above case highlights several systemic failures in the administration of Murshidabad in West Bengal:
1. The lack of transparency and accountability in the operation of the BSF, which breeds impunity and disregard for the law;
2. The hypocrisy with which the BSF approach the people by first promising to exercise restraint and then being responsible for the nefarious and senseless murder of Babu;
3. The pervasive, and oftentimes senseless, use of violence by provincial authorities against individuals within their jurisdiction;
4. The lack of enforcement and/or poor communication by India’s central government of basic protocol amongst paramilitary forces such as the BSF;
5. The lack of complete responsiveness of police to aggrieved locals either due to fear of or collusion with the BSF, or an execrable apathy to the plight of the victim and his family
Babu leaves behind a teenage widow and eight month old daughter who are now forced to fend for themselves in a very uncertain future. They have not been assured that the criminals responsible will be brought to justice. They are equally unsure if retaliatory attacks will be waged upon them for bringing the murder up to the police, and are defenceless against such reprisals. Babu’s young widow, Banuara Bibi, is particularly vulnerable as a woman from a religious minority that suffers discrimination.
Without state intervention or international pressure, the people of Murshidabad, particularly the most vulnerable – the women, the elderly, the widowed, the illiterate and religious minorities – face, for the foreseeable future, continued abuse of their freedoms and physical person and no likelihood for justice to be served to those acting with complete impunity.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The Border Security Act, 1968 and its Rules 1969, regulates the conduct of the BSF. Section 41 (f) of the Act mandates that a BSF officer who commits any offence against the property or person of any inhabitant of, or resident in, the country in which he is serving to be punished with seven years of imprisonment. The Indian Penal Code of 1860 also provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt or injuries to a person. Section 326 of the Code prescribes punishment by way of imprisonment for a term of ten years to a person who voluntarily causes hurt by dangerous weapons or means. In addition, Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and personal liberty of every citizen. There is, however, an obvious lack of discipline and commitment to duty, as well as a culture of violence and impunity, within the BSF. This case once again illustrates how the BSF operates, and is permitted to operate, with impunity and in utter defiance of these three legal documents.
The AHRC has documented substantial number of BSF atrocities in India over the years. AHRC and MASUM have reported in detail over 800 cases of custodial violence committed by the BSF over the past eight years and have called for action on the part of the Indian authorities. The AHRC has noted the absolute impunity with which the BSF acts, a fact evidenced by the lack of disciplinary action taken against their criminal offences by the relevant BSF superiors and police personnel. Critically, many of these cases reveal a troubling unresponsiveness, and sometimes complicity, in parts of the legal system to patent injustices committed against individuals by the BSF. Not only is the legitimacy and integrity of the Indian justice system threatened, but so is its border and national security.
Babu had, as a human being, a right to life, liberty and personal security (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6 (1), 7, 9 and 10). Babu furthermore had a right to move freely within the borders of his own country (UDHR Article 13(1)). The BSF jawans who hunted the four men like animals did not treat them as born free and equal to themselves in dignity and rights and as being endowed with reason and conscience (UDHR Article 1). They did not act towards the four men in a spirit of brotherhood. The BSF had violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which demands that no person be denied of his life except according to procedure established by law, a transgression that should be swiftly met with by the centre through punitive action against these rogue actors. The BSF promise many things: border security, self-restraint in the use of lethal weapons, fewer unnecessary deaths. But these are empty promises. The organisation promises instead the gradual corruption of already weak policing systems, increased lawlessness and an environment of palpable fear that reeks of oppression, past feudalism and neo-colonial structures in contemporary Indian society. The BSF beast is injustice manifest that has firmly embedded itself in institutions originally construed as bulwarks against such. It is a beast that ought to be quickly rehabilitated – or permanently put down.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities mentioned below demanding an investigation into this case. Mr Babu Seikh’s torture and murder by BSF jawans must be inquired into. The police at Raninagar Police Station should also have a review conducted as to how else they may have better served the cause of justice when taking up Babu’s case, as well as undergo training that would permit them to assert their authority over rogue BSF. The victim’s family members and the rest of the traumatised community, particularly witnesses to the incident, must be provided adequate protection against reprisals by challenged BSFs. The community must also be assured that such senseless acts of violence and impunity will not occur again in the future, or, if they do, that they will be capably met by proper checks and balances within the justice system.
The AHRC is also writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Torture and Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions calling for further intervention in this case.
To support this appeal, please click here:
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear __________,
INDIA: Please investigate the torture and extrajudicial killing of Mr Babu Seikh by BSF jawans under the Char Rajanagar Camp of 91st Battalion of BSF and the criminal negligence and inaction by police officers at Raninagar Police Station in Murshidabad, West Bengal
Name of victim: Mr Babu Seikh, 21 years old, married to Banuara Bibi and father to an eight-month-old daughter, agrarian labourer of the Muslim faith; deceased. He was a resident of the village of Khamarpara-Beledanga in the area of Katlamar Post Office and within the jurisdiction of Raninagar, Murshidabad, West Bengal.
Alleged perpetrators: Six BSF personnel attached to Char Rajanagar Camp of 91st Battalion of BSF
Date of incident: 22 April 2012 around 7pm and thereafter
Place of incident: Ashramtala Mahadev Ghat of Rajapur Gram Panchayet under Raninagar Police Station, on the way to Rajanagar, Murshidabad district, West Bengal
I am writing to express concern regarding yet another case of torture and murder by BSF personnel attached to Char Rajanagar Camp of 91st Battalion of the BSF from 7pm on 22 April 2012. The details of the case are as follows:
The victim is 21-year-old Mr Babu Seikh, who was from the Muslim community and worked the agrarian lands of others on subsistence wages.
At approximately 9am on 22 March 2012, Babu left his home for Mr Tutul Seikh's agrarian land, which he had been tasked to work. The entire day passed and when he failed to return that night, his family became worried. In the morning on 23 March 2012, they went out to search for Babu, and later found out that Babu, along with Mr Tutul Seikh (son of Mr Faizuddin Seikh), Mr Riajul Shah (son of Mr Rezu Shah) and Mr Selim Shah (son of Mr Sourabh Shah), all residents of the same village, had been seen walking toward the char (marshland) the previous evening (i.e. 22 March) at about 7pm. While they were walking toward Rajanagar, six BSF personnel attached to the Char Rajanagar Camp of 91st Battalion of BSF began chasing them at Ashramtala Mahadev Ghat of Rajapur Gram Panchayet under Raningar Police Station. After hounding the four men a while, the BSF resorted to firing at them without warning. A bullet pierced the middle of the chest of the deceased, and the BSF continued firing upon the men. The BSF personnel then dragged the bullet riddled body of Babu to their vehicle and drove to Rajanagar Camp. Babu's family maintains that the deceased was still alive and faced inhuman torture at Rajanagar Camp which later caused him to die. One of the witnesses to the above events (name withheld for the individual's protection) informed MASUM that the witnesses were all so frightened by the incident that they dared not visit the Rajanagar Camp to even enquire about the victim's whereabouts.
Babu's father informed the police of Raninagar Police Station about the incident at 9am on 23 March 2012, upon which the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Raninagar Police Station, Mr Nilanjan Roy, went to Rajanagar Camp in a police jeep and recovered Babu's body. The Raninagar Police Station soon labelled it a case of Unnatural Death, vide U/D (Unnatural Death) Case No. 04/12 dated 23 March 2012. The police later received a written complaint from the widow of the deceased, Ms. Banuara Bibi, and Raninagar Police Station Case 155/12 dated 12 March 2012 against unknown BSF personnel of 91st Battalion under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Later on that day Babu's body was sent to Behrampur General Hospital in Murshidabad for a post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 24 March 2012 and the body was handed over to the family on the same day for the performance of funeral rites. Information concerning the whereabouts and physical condition of the other three men has not yet been uncovered.
The BSF violated specific rules laid out in the 1973 Criminal Procedures Code and constitutional rights of the individual to life and liberty. The six BSF personnel who had chased the four men and shot at them demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and for human lives. The six BSF personnel acted with complete impunity and unconscionable violence. They were in full control of the situation, even taking care to remove Babu's body in an attempt to avoid discovery and prosecution. This also suggests that those BSF personnel knew what they were doing was wrong – and proceeded to do so anyway.
The BSF personnel failed to call in a doctor to examine the body of the victim. They also failed to report the incident to the police who had proper jurisdiction over the area. The village in which the four men resided was seven kilometres away from the actual Indo-Bangladesh border, which begs the question of what authority the BSF were acting under when they gave chase and fired at the four men. The BSF also did not subsequently make any complaint with the police against the deceased, which is not characteristic of the BSF in cases of extrajudicial killings by their personnel. As such, it is unclear if there were grounds at all for the chase and attack by the BSF.
The police personnel themselves did not discharge their duties fully. Although the report by Babu's father was received and acted upon, and although Babu's body had been brought back, the police of Raninagar did not call in doctor qualified in forensics to conduct a post-mortem. This information would have been vital in the prosecution of the BSF personnel involved. Further forensic work could have been done matching the bullets fired to the guns used by BSF personnel at Rajanagar Camp. Such a process places certain reasonable demands upon the BSF that should have been complied with all along. In this case, records of which weapons were issued to who (being able to match serial numbers to individuals), for example, would have increased the transparency and accountability with which the BSF operates. It would also have helped pinpoint the six individuals responsible for Babu's murder. No magistrate was called for an inquiry into the case, making the victim's family entirely reliant on the help of a police force that may be unwilling to pursue the matter. Finally, Babu's family did not receive the post-mortem examination report. Not knowing the precise cause of death and not having any details of the physical condition Babu's body was found in means that his family is unable to formally press charges against the BSF. Such deficiencies in investigative processes in turn maim the judicial processes that would have actually been able to deliver justice to Babu and his family.
The fact that the BSF recently issued a statement claiming increased self-restraint on the use of lethal weapons and attempts to minimise the loss of human lives flies in the face of what has happened to Babu. While the populace and other NGOs such as MASUM had welcomed such statements, such deception creates bitterness and disillusionment amongst the people the Force is designed to protect and only serves to erode its legitimacy. The "rogue" character of these paramilitary forces further reflects badly on the central government that continues to endorse, fund, and, at least theoretically, lead it. For such a well-established force to perpetrate such acts of cruelty is shocking, tragic and disgraceful. Such acts truly lower the morale of other individuals within the force who try to fulfil their proper duties in order to protect the people their comrades are hurting.
The above case highlights several systemic failures in the administration of Murshidabad in West Bengal:
1. The lack of transparency and accountability in the operation of the BSF, which breeds impunity and disregard for the law;
2. The hypocrisy with which the BSF approach the people by first promising to exercise restraint and then being responsible for the nefarious and senseless murder of Babu;
3. The pervasive, and oftentimes senseless, use of violence by provincial authorities against individuals within their jurisdiction;
4. The lack of enforcement and/or poor communication by India's central government of basic protocol amongst paramilitary forces such as the BSF;
5. The lack of complete responsiveness of police to aggrieved locals either due to fear of or collusion with the BSF, or an execrable apathy to the plight of the victim and his family.
The Border Security Act, 1968 and its Rules 1969, regulates the conduct of the BSF. Section 41 (f) of the Act mandates that a BSF officer who commits any offence against the property or person of any inhabitant of, or resident in, the country in which he is serving to be punished with seven years of imprisonment. The Indian Penal Code of 1860 also provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt or injuries to a person. Section 326 of the Code prescribes punishment by way of imprisonment for a term of ten years to a person who voluntarily causes hurt by dangerous weapons or means. In addition, Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and personal liberty of every citizen. There is, however, an obvious lack of discipline and commitment to duty, as well as a culture of violence and impunity, within the BSF. This case once again illustrates how the BSF operates, and is permitted to operate, with impunity and in utter defiance of these three legal documents.
The AHRC has documented substantial number of BSF atrocities in India over the years. AHRC and MASUM have reported in detail over 800 cases of custodial violence committed by the BSF over the past eight years and have called for action on the part of the Indian authorities. The AHRC has noted the absolute impunity with which the BSF acts, a fact evidenced by the lack of disciplinary action taken against their criminal offences by the relevant BSF superiors and police personnel. Critically, many of these cases reveal a troubling unresponsiveness, and sometimes complicity, in parts of the legal system to patent injustices committed against individuals by the BSF. Not only is the legitimacy and integrity of the Indian justice system threatened, but so is its border and national security.
Babu had, as a human being, a right to life, liberty and personal security (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6 (1), 7, 9 and 10). Babu furthermore had a right to move freely within the borders of his own country (UDHR Article 13(1)). The BSF jawans who hunted the four men like animals did not treat them as born free and equal to themselves in dignity and rights and as being endowed with reason and conscience (UDHR Article 1). They did not act towards the four men in a spirit of brotherhood. The BSF had violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which demands that no person be denied of his life except according to procedure established by law, a transgression that should be swiftly met with by the centre through punitive action against these rogue actors. The BSF promise many things: border security, self-restraint in the use of lethal weapons, fewer unnecessary deaths. But these are empty promises. The organisation promises instead the gradual corruption of already weak policing systems, increased lawlessness and an environment of palpable fear that reeks of oppression, past feudalism and neo-colonial structures in contemporary Indian society. The BSF beast is injustice manifest that has firmly embedded itself in institutions originally construed as bulwarks against such. It is a beast that ought to be quickly rehabilitated – or permanently put down.
Babu leaves behind a teenage widow and eight month old daughter who are now forced to fend for themselves in a very uncertain future. They have not been assured of proper closure, or that the criminals responsible will be brought to justice. They are equally unsure if retaliatory attacks will be waged upon them for bringing the murder up to the police, and are defenceless against such reprisals. Babu's young widow, Banuara Bibi, is particularly vulnerable as a woman from a religious minority that suffers discrimination.
Without state intervention or international pressure, the people of Murshidabad, particularly the most vulnerable – the women, the elderly, the widowed, the illiterate and religious minorities – face, for the foreseeable future, continued abuse of their freedoms and physical person and no likelihood for justice to be served to those acting with complete impunity.
I therefore demand that:
1. The case of Babu's murder and torture is investigated by an independent agency appointed by the central government at the earliest possible moment;
2. The case of Babu's murder and torture is simultaneously investigated by another neutral commission to be established by the National Human Rights Commission, also at the earliest possible moment;
3. Charges against the BSF for attempting to destroy or remove evidence of the murder be counted amongst charges of torture and murder;
4. Strong punitive action is taken against the BSF personnel found responsible;
5. A full review of police practices at Raninagar Police Station is conducted to
(i) Determine where the police fell short in arranging for a thorough investigation into the matter
(ii) Determine how in the future the police may directly contact BSF Headquarters concerning the particular
(iii) BSF unit's involvement in such crimes and whether authorisation was given for such actions;
(iv) Determine how in the future a forensic expert may be called in to attend to such cases;
(v) Introduce training of police personnel in proper procedures;
(vi) Determine how the use of proper procedures can be enforced
6. The Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Raninagar Police Station, Mr Nilanjan Roy, is officially and publicly commended for his part in bringing Babu's body back for a post-mortem examination and for his family to perform the last rites that would help them seek some closure. He has demonstrated an admirable responsiveness and sensitivity to the grievances of the victim's family;
7. Babu's wife, Banuara Bibi, is paid adequate compensation by the government for physical and psychological hurt resulting from her husband's murder as well as a separate fund/sum to live on until she is able to find a job providing enough salary to support herself and her daughter;
8. Adequate and pre-emptive protection is provided for Babu's family members and other witnesses of this incident, who may be subject to retaliatory attacks by armed BSF personnel;
9. The central government formulate concrete plans to introduce urgently needed reforms and discipline amongst its paramilitary forces, particularly the BSF, which has already been implicated in countless cases of violence against citizens of India;
10. The central government introduce more checks and balances within the policing system by according the police powers that are actually (not theoretically) equal to or greater than the BSF, which is by definition a paramilitary force with a specific mandate to regulate borders only;
11. The central government devote more funds and persons to forensic science, which may facilitate the resolution and conclusion of such cases and which can provide crucial evidence during court prosecutions;
12. The central government place an emphasis on the legal, constitutional and human rights of individuals when training and briefing police officers, members of the judiciary and the paramilitary forces' personnel and undertake to directly protect such rights also from the centre if provincial authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.
Yours sincerely,
--------------------------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Director General BSF
Block 10, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -03
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 24360016
E-mail: probsf@yahoo.com, bsfhq@bsf.nic.in, bsf_hq@hub.nic.in, bsf_hq@bsf.delhi.nic.in
2. Director General & Inspector General of Police
Government of West Bengal
Writers Buildings, Kolkata-1
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 2214 4498 / 2214 5486
Email: dgp_westbengal@gmail.com
3. Chief Secretary
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: + 91 33 2214 4328
Email: chiefsec@wb.gov.in
4. Additional Chief Secretary (Home)
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Email: sechome@wb.gov.in
5. Ms. Mamata Banerjee
Chief Minister
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Building, Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: + 91 33 22144328
Email: cm_wb@nic.in
6. Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi 110001
INDIA
Fax: + 91 11 2338 4863
E-mail: chairnhrc@nic.in
7. Superintendent of Police
Murshidabad
BMP Police Office
Berhampore 742101, Murshidabad District
West Bengal State
INDIA
Thank you
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
