Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from MASUM concerning the torture of Mr Ranjan Mondal by five BSF personnel attached to Kaharpara BSF Outpost No. 5 under 105th Battalion of BSF on 5 January 2012 Unlawful arrest, torture, caste-based discrimination and a culture of impunity amongst law enforcement and paramilitary agencies are features of everyday life for many Indian people. Such violate a human being’s inherent and fundamental rights to life, liberty and security of person and are oppressive, patently unjust and contemptible.
In addition, the central and provincial authorities have proven unable or unwilling to address the matter of land rights. Family lands have been destroyed through erosion by the river, bankrupting and endangering the physical survival of entire families. The government has a duty to protect and provide for such victims of natural circumstance. Authorities also possess the funds and an arsenal of legal mechanisms through which such problems may be addressed; inaction is therefore inexcusable. Equally inexcusable is the exploitation of position and power by paramilitary forces to arbitrarily inflict grievous hurt on an unarmed man with such impunity and disregard for rule of law.
We urge you to write in to appeal to the relevant authorities to take actions against the officers responsible for such senseless violence, and to request that the rights of individuals to employment and an adequate standard of living be protected. In so doing, we hope to not only assist Ranjan but countless others by encouraging the Indian government to renew its commitment to provide for and protect its people and to strengthen rule of law throughout the land.
CASE NARRATIVE:
An investigation by Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM) has uncovered the following facts.
Mr Ranjan Mondal had been an agrarian labourer before losing his lands to erosion by the Padma River. This is a problem also faced by many of Ranjan’s neighbours, and, like them, Ranjan subsequently became a daily wage labourer to support his wife and two young sons. Poverty and hunger have afflicted this community deprived of their lands, and the situation is aggravated by the insensitivity of state officials who have persistently resisted extending welfare schemes such as distributing the Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration entitlement card and “100 days” restriction on rural employment.
At approximately 5.30am on 5 January 2012, Ranjan left his home in search of work. He arrived at the south side of Kaharpara’s “Iron Bridge” at about 6am, and was suddenly set upon by five Border Security Forces (BSF) jawans from Kaharpara BSF Outpost No. 5 of the 105th Battalion of the BSF. The five officers were wearing camouflage uniform. Ranjan was roughly seized, pinned down and his hands tied behind his back. The BSF bashed Ranjan with rifle butts and sticks and kicked him with boot clad feet, verbally abusing him the whole while. No reasons were given for the random and inhuman assault.
A few villagers who had witnessed the incident rushed to inform Ranjan’s wife, Ms Sadhna Mondal, who rushed to the place. Mr Indrajit Mondal (son of Mr Krishna Chandra Mondal of Char Durgapur), Ms Kalpana Mondal (wife of Mr Sadhu Mondal of Char Sahebnagar) and Mr Kalu Seikh (son of Mr Chand Mohammad of Char Bansgora), residents under Harudanga Post Office under the jurisdiction of Raninagar Police Station, were all witnesses to the torture. Ms Sadhana Mondal, with the help of Ms Kalpana Mondal, made attempts to rescue Ranjan from the abuse of the BSF, who then verbally abused the women with indecent remarks carrying sexual connotations. The BSF warned the women they would shove sticks into their private parts, and threatened to kill them and their family members should they lodge a formal complaint at the police station.
Ranjan was brought to a nearby doctor by his family members and neighbours. Because his family was poor, the victim failed to receive proper and adequate medical care, and was crippled. Ranjan lost his ability to work; this exacerbated the already critical condition the family was in.
Despite the threats made against them by the BSF, the frightened victim and his desperate family finally plucked up the courage to make a report before the Superintendent of Police of Murshidabad on 3 April 2012. To this date no action has been taken.
The above case highlights several systemic failures in the administration of Murshidabad in West Bengal:
1. The lack of transparency, accountability and discipline in the operation of armed forces, which breeds impunity and disregard for the law;
2. The pervasive, excessive , and oftentimes senseless, use of violence by provincial authorities against individuals within their jurisdiction;
3. The lack of enforcement and/or poor communication by India’s central government and judiciary of basic protocol (for making arrests, interrogating, detaining and trying suspects) amongst law enforcement agencies and paramilitary forces such as the BSF;
4. The lack of responsiveness of the police to aggrieved locals
5. The troubling apathy of the government toward the daily suffering of its people, in this case, to the segment of society whose members have lost their lands and livelihoods through natural environmental degradation
The medical team at “VIC-TREE”, a project run by MASUM with the support of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (UNVFVT), has provided the victim and his family some medical support and recorded the victim’s statement. Ranjan’s statement may be accessed at http://youtu.be/MOTBc9PYF8s.
The only ones capable of disciplining rogue actors at the legal and geographical periphery appear unwilling to do so. They are powerful groups and actors within the state government who are callous to or complicit in the atrocities committed against the very people upon which their authority, legitimacy and power rest. Yet without state intervention, it is unlikely that Ranjan and his family will ever see their BSF tormentors brought to justice. As such, we urge the state and central authorities to act upon these findings and move quickly to assist Ranjan and his family. By demonstrating impartiality, objectivity and respect for procedures established by law, the authorities can set important precedent for the BSF and the police to follow, thereby improving the functionality of the justice institutions around India.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
There can never be any justification for torture because the practice outrages the inherent dignity of a human being. Not only has Ranjan been robbed of his rights to security of person and against torture and cruel, inhuman treatment, but he has also been denied, through his extensive injuries, access to work and an adequate standard of living for himself and his family. Inaction by the police has also violated his right to equal protection by the law and exposes cowardice, collusion with the BSF, or an execrable apathy to the victim’s plight.
Several prominent Indian laws guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual against the overwhelming power of the state; these include the 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1950 Indian Constitution, the 1968 Border Security Act (BSA) and the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Indian Constitution, a legal document that provides the basis of human rights in India and establishes the duty of the State toward the welfare of the individual. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution affirm an individual’s right to life and personal liberty, and to equal protection of the laws. Instead of assuming responsibility for protecting the rights of India’s citizens, the BSF, a paramilitary force commissioned and appointed by the Central Government, has instead acted with complete impunity and become the very perpetrators of abuse against the people.
Criminal force is defined in Section 350 of the IPC as intentional force against a person’s consent knowing it likely to cause injury, fear or annoying to the person against whom the force is being used. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means and wrongful restraint also constitute crime under Sections 326 and 339 of the IPC, and is punishable with life imprisonment and a fine. The BSF personnel involved should furthermore be charged for criminal intimidation under Section 503, and for words intended to outrage the modesty of a woman under Section 509. Yet it is extremely likely the incident will not be investigated, and that the BSF officers responsible will not be prosecuted or punished.
The barbaric attack by the BSF is indefensible according to Articles 45, 132(d) and 197(2) of the CrPC which clearly state that an officer must have been acting in his official capacity to enjoy immunity from being charged in civilian courts. Even concerning acts carried out in the formal discharge of duty, BSF officers can and must be made to stand before a military tribunal to account for their actions. Where a man’s life and liberty has been so cheapened, this is the very least the authorities are expected to demand of their officers, in whose hands the lives of so many are entrusted.
The Border Security Act, 1968 and its Rules 1969, was designed to regulate 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. There is 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 legal documents.
Paramilitary forces are to enforce the law and to be moral exemplars to the community they police. Minimally, therefore, these armed forces should adhere to state law. In addition, they are to adhere to codes and practices stipulated by acts and ordinances created specifically to regulate their activities and prevent abuses of authority. Armed forces ought to also be subjected to monitoring by an independent and impartial party. Ideally, such organisations should adopt and internalise the fundamental principles upon which statues are enacted (i.e. the spirit, as opposed to only the letter, of the law); these are principles such as justice, compassion and the inherent dignity of a human being. Assault is a cognizable criminal offence, and there are legal ramifications resulting from such blatant contempt of rule of law by forces armed, funded and, theoretically, directed by the Central Government. And with great power comes great responsibility – armed forces are to act in a measured manner in all situations, to discharge their duties and to be legally and morally beyond reproach.
The attack on Ranjan adds to a growing corpus of casework that evidences serious institutional flaws in the Indian justice system. 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. Critically, many of these cases reveal a troubling unresponsiveness, and sometimes complicity, in parts of the executive and the judiciary to patent injustices committed against individuals by the BSF. A broken chain of command and the contravention of commands from the centre threaten the entire Indian nation. Not only is the legitimacy and integrity of the Indian government and justice system threatened, but so is its border and national security. Contempt for the law is also disruptive and dangerous, and breeds a more pervasive and insidious lawlessness that will be difficult for even the Central Government to stem. This is why it is paramount 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, is not allowed to flourish.
When the BSF broke Ranjan, they also demonstrated disregard for international law and universal values of respect for rule of law, democracy and the inherent dignity of Man. As state-endorsed paramilitary forces, the cruel, inhuman and degrading acts against Ranjan and the women who bravely intervened on his behalf have severe implications for India’s reputation. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) speaks of the rights of individuals to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3), against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 5) and to equal protection under the law without discrimination (Article 6 and 7). In 1979, India acceded to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which reiterated many of the fundamental rights of the individual laid out in the UDHR and legally bound state parties to act on their belief in these rights. Some of the rights and liberties included in the ICCPR include the right against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 7). The state also has a moral and legal responsibility to provide for its people. India acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1979, yet has not fulfilled its promises to take appropriate steps toward realise individuals’ rights to work freely chosen or accepted, to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions and to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Articles 6, 11 and 12 of the ICESCR). The Indian state is bound by international law to upholding these rights. Yet none of these legal safeguards and constitutional guarantees was afforded Ranjan, his family, and the community around the rapidly degrading Padma River.
Ranjan is just one in a long line of people long terrorised by the BSF, yet the physical abuse is matched by the criminal neglect by the local authorities of their constituents, many of whom live in varying degrees of deprivation. The state of West Bengal has failed them. Schemes to help communities adjust to the loss of family lands to erosion by the river (e.g. programmes to relocate families and seek out alternative sources of employment) have not been formulated or implemented. Such institutional and technocratic deficiencies exacerbate existing conditions of hunger and desperation, physical and psychological conditions that contribute to crime and social unrest. The central and provincial authorities must realise that punishing perpetrators and reforming the BSF is a necessary but insufficient precondition to rehabilitating a disenfranchised society embittered by long years of abuse. Administrative shortcomings have economically devastated the society and its faith in the authorities. If the government refuses to even acknowledge its own inadequacies and the impact such have had on the people upon whom its legitimacy is founded, it is hardly like individuals like Ranjan will ever see justice done, escape the poverty or be able to prevent future brutality by the BSF on their own.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities mentioned below demanding an investigation into this case. Ranjan should be immediately compensated for medical fees incurred and the loss of wages as a result of his severe beating at the hands of the BSF. The victim, his family and the wider community must be protected against recriminations from the BSF, who have clearly demonstrated no qualms against the use of violence and against the breaking of law. Local authorities should act immediately to manage poverty, unemployment and specifically the displacement and loss of livelihood associated with natural environmental degradation. The entire community must furthermore be assured that such acts of violence and impunity will not occur again in the future, or, if they do, that they will be capably checked by mechanisms built into the justice system to address such abuse of authority.
The AHRC is also writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food 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 random violence against Mr Ranjan Mondal around 6am on 5 January 2012 by five uniformed Border Security Forces (BSF) personnel from Outpost No. 5 of 105th Battalion of the BSF on the south side of Kaharpara's "Iron Bridge", as well as the criminal neglect of poverty-stricken families in the area
Name of victim: Mr Ranjan Mondal, 40 years old, s/o Rishipada Mondal, member of Scheduled Caste community and resident of Char Sahednagar, Border Para Post Office under the jurisdiction of Raninagar Police Station, Murshidabad, West Bengal
Names of alleged perpetrators: Five jawans attached to Kaharpara BSF Outpost No. 5 of 105th Battalion of the BSF, who were wearing camouflage uniform at the time of the attack
Date of incident: 5 January 2012 at approximately 6am
Place of incident: South side of Kaharpara's "Iron Bridge"
I am writing to express concern regarding another case of BSF violence, this time against Mr Ranjan Mondal, around 6 am on 5 January 2012 by five BSF jawans attached to Kaharpara Camp under Outpost No. 5 of 105th Battalion of the BSF.
Mr Ranjan Mondal had been an agrarian labourer before losing his lands to erosion by the Padma River. This is a problem also faced by many of Ranjan's neighbours, and, like them, Ranjan subsequently became a daily wage labourer to support his wife and two young sons. Poverty and hunger have afflicted this community deprived of their lands, and the situation is aggravated by the insensitivity of state officials who have persistently resisted extending welfare schemes such as distributing the Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration entitlement card and "100 days" restriction on rural employment.
At approximately 5.30am on 5 January 2012, Ranjan left his home in search of work. He arrived at the south side of Kaharpara's "Iron Bridge" at about 6am, and was suddenly set upon by five Border Security Forces (BSF) jawans from Kaharpara BSF Outpost No. 5 of the 105th Battalion of the BSF. The five officers were wearing camouflage uniform. Ranjan was roughly seized, pinned down and his hands tied behind his back. The BSF bashed Ranjan with rifle butts and sticks and kicked him with boot clad feet, verbally abusing him the whole while. No reasons were given for the random and inhuman assault.
A few villagers who had witnessed the incident rushed to inform Ranjan's wife, Ms Sadhna Mondal, who rushed to the place. Mr Indrajit Mondal (son of Mr Krishna Chandra Mondal of Char Durgapur), Ms Kalpana Mondal (wife of Mr Sadhu Mondal of Char Sahebnagar) and Mr Kalu Seikh (son of Mr Chand Mohammad of Char Bansgora), residents under Harudanga Post Office under the jurisdiction of Raninagar Police Station, were all witnesses to the torture. Ms Sadhana Mondal, with the help of Ms Kalpana Mondal, made attempts to rescue Ranjan from the abuse of the BSF, who then verbally abused the women with indecent remarks carrying sexual connotations. The BSF warned the women they would shove sticks into their private parts, and threatened to kill them and their family members should they lodge a formal complaint at the police station.
Ranjan was brought to a nearby doctor by his family members and neighbours. Because his family was poor, the victim failed to receive proper and adequate medical care, and was crippled. Ranjan lost his ability to work; this exacerbated the already critical condition the family was in.
Despite the threats made against them by the BSF, the frightened victim and his desperate family finally plucked up the courage to make a report before the Superintendent of Police of Murshidabad on 3 April 2012. To this date no action has been taken.
The above case highlights several systemic failures in the administration of Murshidabad in West Bengal:
1. The lack of transparency, accountability and discipline in the operation of armed forces, which breeds impunity and disregard for the law;
2. The pervasive, excessive , and oftentimes senseless, use of violence by provincial authorities against individuals within their jurisdiction;
3. The lack of enforcement and/or poor communication by India's central government and judiciary of basic protocol (for making arrests, interrogating, detaining and trying suspects) amongst law enforcement agencies and paramilitary forces such as the BSF;
4. The lack of responsiveness of the police to aggrieved locals
5. The troubling apathy of the government toward the daily suffering of its people, in this case, to the segment of society whose members have lost their lands and livelihoods through natural environmental degradation
The medical team at "VIC-TREE", a project run by MASUM with the support of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (UNVFVT), has provided the victim and his family some medical support and recorded the victim's statement. Ranjan's statement may be accessed at http://youtu.be/MOTBc9PYF8s.
There can never be any justification for torture because the practice outrages the inherent dignity of a human being. Not only has Ranjan been robbed of his rights to security of person and against torture and cruel, inhuman treatment, but he has also been denied, through his extensive injuries, access to work and an adequate standard of living for himself and his family. Inaction by the police has also violated his right to equal protection by the law and exposes cowardice, collusion with the BSF, or an execrable apathy to the victim's plight.
Several prominent Indian laws guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual against the overwhelming power of the state; these include the 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1950 Indian Constitution, the 1968 Border Security Act (BSA) and the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Indian Constitution, a legal document that provides the basis of human rights in India and establishes the duty of the State toward the welfare of the individual. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution affirm an individual's right to life and personal liberty, and to equal protection of the laws. Instead of assuming responsibility for protecting the rights of India's citizens, the BSF, a paramilitary force commissioned and appointed by the Central Government, has instead acted with complete impunity and become the very perpetrators of abuse against the people.
Criminal force is defined in Section 350 of the IPC as intentional force against a person's consent knowing it likely to cause injury, fear or annoying to the person against whom the force is being used. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means and wrongful restraint also constitute crime under Sections 326 and 339 of the IPC, and is punishable with life imprisonment and a fine. The BSF personnel involved should furthermore be charged for criminal intimidation under Section 503, and for words intended to outrage the modesty of a woman under Section 509. Yet it is extremely likely the incident will not be investigated, and that the BSF officers responsible will not be prosecuted or punished.
The barbaric attack by the BSF is indefensible according to Articles 45, 132(d) and 197(2) of the CrPC which clearly state that an officer must have been acting in his official capacity to enjoy immunity from being charged in civilian courts. Even concerning acts carried out in the formal discharge of duty, BSF officers can and must be made to stand before a military tribunal to account for their actions. Where a man's life and liberty has been so cheapened, this is the very least the authorities are expected to demand of their officers, in whose hands the lives of so many are entrusted.
The Border Security Act, 1968 and its Rules 1969, was designed to regulate 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. There is 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 legal documents.
Paramilitary forces are to enforce the law and to be moral exemplars to the community they police. Minimally, therefore, these armed forces should adhere to state law. In addition, they are to adhere to codes and practices stipulated by acts and ordinances created specifically to regulate their activities and prevent abuses of authority. Armed forces ought to also be subjected to monitoring by an independent and impartial party. Ideally, such organisations should adopt and internalise the fundamental principles upon which statues are enacted (i.e. the spirit, as opposed to only the letter, of the law); these are principles such as justice, compassion and the inherent dignity of a human being. Assault is a cognizable criminal offence, and there are legal ramifications resulting from such blatant contempt of rule of law by forces armed, funded and, theoretically, directed by the Central Government. And with great power comes great responsibility – armed forces are to act in a measured manner in all situations, to discharge their duties and to be legally and morally beyond reproach.
The attack on Ranjan adds to a growing corpus of casework that evidences serious institutional flaws in the Indian justice system. 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. Critically, many of these cases reveal a troubling unresponsiveness, and sometimes complicity, in parts of the executive and the judiciary to patent injustices committed against individuals by the BSF. A broken chain of command and the contravention of commands from the centre threaten the entire Indian nation. Not only is the legitimacy and integrity of the Indian government and justice system threatened, but so is its border and national security. Contempt for the law is also disruptive and dangerous, and breeds a more pervasive and insidious lawlessness that will be difficult for even the Central Government to stem. This is why it is paramount 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, is not allowed to flourish.
When the BSF broke Ranjan, they also demonstrated disregard for international law and universal values of respect for rule of law, democracy and the inherent dignity of Man. As state-endorsed paramilitary forces, the cruel, inhuman and degrading acts against Ranjan and the women who bravely intervened on his behalf have severe implications for India's reputation. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) speaks of the rights of individuals to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3), against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 5) and to equal protection under the law without discrimination (Article 6 and 7). In 1979, India acceded to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which reiterated many of the fundamental rights of the individual laid out in the UDHR and legally bound state parties to act on their belief in these rights. Some of the rights and liberties included in the ICCPR include the right against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 7). The state also has a moral and legal responsibility to provide for its people. India acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1979, yet has not fulfilled its promises to take appropriate steps toward realise individuals' rights to work freely chosen or accepted, to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions and to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Articles 6, 11 and 12 of the ICESCR). The Indian state is bound by international law to upholding these rights. Yet none of these legal safeguards and constitutional guarantees was afforded Ranjan, his family, and the community around the rapidly degrading Padma River.
Ranjan is just one in a long line of people long terrorised by the BSF, yet the physical abuse is matched by the criminal neglect by the local authorities of their constituents, many of whom live in varying degrees of deprivation. The state of West Bengal has failed them. Schemes to help communities adjust to the loss of family lands to erosion by the river (e.g. programmes to relocate families and seek out alternative sources of employment) have not been formulated or implemented. Such institutional and technocratic deficiencies exacerbate existing conditions of hunger and desperation, physical and psychological conditions that contribute to crime and social unrest. The central and provincial authorities must realise that punishing perpetrators and reforming the BSF is a necessary but insufficient precondition to rehabilitating a disenfranchised society embittered by long years of abuse. Administrative shortcomings have economically devastated the society and its faith in the authorities. If the government refuses to even acknowledge its own inadequacies and the impact such have had on the people upon whom its legitimacy is founded, it is hardly like individuals like Ranjan will ever see justice done, escape the poverty or be able to prevent future brutality by the BSF on their own.
The only ones capable of disciplining rogue actors at the legal and geographical periphery appear unwilling to do so. They are powerful groups and actors within the state government who are callous to or complicit in the atrocities committed against the very people upon which their authority, legitimacy and power rest. Yet without state intervention, it is unlikely that Ranjan and his family will ever see their BSF tormentors brought to justice. As such, we urge the state and central authorities to act upon these findings and move quickly to assist Ranjan and his family. By demonstrating impartiality, objectivity and respect for procedures established by law, the authorities can set important precedent for the BSF and the police to follow, thereby improving the functionality of the justice institutions around India.
I therefore demand that:
1. The give BSF officers who assaulted Ranjan are immediately identified and suspended from active service;
2. The incident is thoroughly and impartially investigated by an independent agency appointed by the Central Government;
3. The BSF personnel are booked for causing grievous hurt and for making obscene remarks that insulted the modesty of the women who came to Ranjan's assistance;
4. The four BSF personnel be internally investigated by the BSF for failure to comply with standard criminal procedure;
5. Adequate compensation is provided Ranjan for the medical expenses incurred and income lost due to injuries sustained from the assault;
6. Adequate protection is provided Ranjan, his family and witnesses against retaliation from the BSF;
7. Alternative ways to earn income are availed Ranjan , his family and all others affected by land lost to erosion by the river Padma;
8. An investigation into the practices of the BSF are conducted by an independent commission established by the Central Government and a report is submitted concerning the need for review or reform;
9. The Central Government reiterate the importance of legal, constitutional and human rights of individuals during the training and briefing of police officers, members of the judiciary and the paramilitary forces' personnel and undertake to directly protect such rights 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)
