(June 26 is observed every year as the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.)
Giasuddin Mandol is an iron scrap dealer from the North 24 Parganas District of West Bengal. On August 2, 2007, at about 7:30 p.m., the subinspector of police at the Deganga police station, Ayub Ali, took Mandol into custody. At the police station, the officer in charge, Julfikaqr Ali Mollah, questioned Mandol. The officer wanted Mandol to confess that he was dealing with stolen articles, which Mandol refused to do. The officer then forced Mandols head into the drawer of a table inside the police station, stripped Mandols trousers off and poured acid into his anus. As a result, Mandol suffered severe acid burns and had to be hospitalised.
In January 2008, the prime minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, declared that his government is concerned about the practice of custodial torture in India and stated that India would soon ratify the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
However, on June 15, 2008, the speaker of the Kerala State Assembly, K. Radhakrishnan, declared at the annual conference of police officers in the state that the use of third-degree methods by the state police cannot be condemned . The speaker argued that it is ridiculous to insist that police officers in India respect human rights. According to him, it is difficult to do policing and respect human rights. He made it clear that when the police investigate a crime it is natural and often required for the investigating officer to use torture to prove the case. Among those listening to these remarks was the director of the State Police Training College and the director-general of police.
A week later the government of India claimed at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva that India is an example that other countries can emulate. The reference was to India’s contribution, domestically and internationally, to protect, promote and fulfil human rights. India, in fact, offered its assistance to other member countries that might require its help to protect human rights and human values in their jurisdictions.
The practice of violence by authorities is not an alien concept to India. Indeed, it is inlaid in the very fabric of Indian society. It is a norm that has fortified its position through centuries of practice. Without violence, deceit and malice, the concept of dharma that was established some 3,000 years ago in the Indian subcontinent could not have been rooted out–completely–by the caste system. The codified Dharmasastra that replaced dharma also destroyed the concept of justice. Since the 2nd and 1st century BCE, it was this Dharmasastra that has been perfected in India.
Various reasons are attributed to justify the practice of violence, particularly by law enforcement agencies in India. Shallow arguments, like a lack of resources to scientifically investigate crimes and public pressure to solve crimes, are all posed as excuses by the law enforcement agencies to use torture as an essential part of criminal investigations. Of late, political pressure to prove crimes is cited as the most important reason for law enforcement agencies to use torture.
However, this reasoning is false. It is contrary to the fact to argue that politicians in India, of which an estimated 65 percent are facing criminal charges for offences ranging from rape to murder, would employ any pressure upon law enforcement agencies in the country to investigate criminal cases. Had they done so, most of them would be in prison for the rest of their life.
It is equally an understatement to argue that the police use violence to investigate crimes since they lack adequate facilities. India is not a poor country. Neither is India strapped with a lack of resources. Most of the cases documented by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) from India indicate that the people who are often subjected to violence in custody are not accused of complicated crimes that require the skills of a sophisticated forensic lab. A large number of cases suggest that the use of force by the police was not even utilised against the accused in a case but was randomly used against members of the general public. In fact, the use of violence appears to be the most-used tool to enforce the law by the police.
Unfortunately, the maximum brunt of the violence used by law enforcement agencies in India is felt by the poor in India. Sixty percent of the estimated 1.2 billion population in the country are poor. It is this massive section of Indian citizens who are forced to cope with the violence their law enforcement agencies practice with impunity.
But the poor do not matter in India. For a country that ostensibly competes with China to claim its share in the new world economic equation, the plight of people like Mandol does not matter. Whether the police officer who poured acid on Mondal is punished or not is not the concern of the neo-rich who find it difficult to decide a destination for their next vacation. What these people fail to realise, however, is that their newfound financial power will be short-lived without the foundations of the rule of law and justice.
The practice of torture and the concept of justice cannot coexist. Where justice fails, development cannot compensate. Indeed, stable and sustainable development depends upon justice systems. A law enforcement agency is the backbone of the justice system. A law enforcement agency that practices torture cannot promote justice. Without justice, a democracy cannot sustain itself.
Presently, the concept of justice, democracy and sustainable development in India does not exist. What is projected is only a façade rooted in false prejudices that draw resources from discrimination. The status quo only benefits the powerful and influential. To breach the status quo, Indians have to rein in their law enforcement agencies. That rein has to prevent the practice of custodial violence. Mere confused public statements and empty rhetoric preaching human rights and human values will not help.
