VZCZCXRO8342
PP RUEHBI RUEHCI
DE RUEHCI #0167/01 1371158
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 171158Z MAY 07
FM AMCONSUL KOLKATA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1555
INFO RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 0644
RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA 0420
RUEHGO/AMEMBASSY RANGOON 0278
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU 0426
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 0345
RUEILB/NCTC WASHINGTON DC
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0007
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0039
RUEIDN/DNI WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA 1916
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 1474
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 0649

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 KOLKATA 000167 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM KWMN PGOV SOCI PTER IN
SUBJECT: INDIAN AUTHORITIES CONTINUE TO DETAIN INDEFINITELY HUMAN 
RIGHTS ADVOCATE IROM SHARMILA 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  On May 11 Manipuri human rights activist 
Irom Sharmila was summoned to New Delhi to face charges of 
attempted suicide stemming from her six-year hunger strike 
against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).  Sharmila 
has been protesting the continued human rights violations 
committed by the India armed forces under the AFSPA.  Normally 
based in Manipur, she had taken her protest to New Delhi in 
October 2006 and remained there until March 2007.  Returning to 
Manipur on March 6, she was taken into judicial custody pending 
the charges of attempted suicide filed in the New Delhi courts. 
The AFSPA permits security forces to "shoot to kill" any 
suspects with impunity and has facilitated serious human rights 
abuses, including extrajudicial killings, "disappearance," rape 
and torture by granting sweeping powers to the security forces 
in "disturbed" areas of large parts of Northeast India.  Human 
rights activists allege that hundreds have been killed, 
mutilated and women raped in "militarized" Manipur under the 
cover of this law since its inception in 1958. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Summary Continued:  In November 2004, the Justice 
Jeevan Reddy Committee  conducted a review of the act following 
protests over the rape and killing of Thangjam Manorama by the 
Assam Rifles in Manipur.  The Committee's recommendations 
included repeal of the act and inclusion of new provisions in 
the existing Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (ULPA) to 
maintain a balance between counter-insurgency efforts and the 
protection of human rights.  The recommendations were not 
accepted by the Central government.  As Sharmila's detention 
indicates, officials continue to deny the protection of 
fundamental human rights in the Northeast, and can do so because 
the region remains outside of the national and international 
consciousness.  Such a policy, however, undermines long-term 
prospects for peace and security in the region.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------------------ 
 
Irom Sharmila's 6-year Hunger Strike 
 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶3.  (U) Irom Sharmila, selected for the South Korean Gwangju 
Prize for Human Rights on May 2, has been on a hunger strike for 
more than six years to protest human rights abuses in Manipur 
and to demand the repeal of the draconian AFSPA.  Sharmila began 
her fast on November 2, 2000 following the killing of 10 
civilians at Malom, near the state capital of Imphal, by Assam 
Rifles personnel acting under the authority of the AFSPA.  She 
has been arrested, hospitalized and force fed through nasal 
tubes for much of the past six years.  Sharmila has been in 
judicial custody for the punishable offense of attempt to commit 
suicide under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 
Sharmila's hospital room where she is confined in Imphal is 
treated as an extension of the state prison.  Every year a new 
First Information Report (FIR) is filed against her, because 
legally she cannot be detained for her offense for more than a 
year and should be released.  The state police have not filed 
formal charges against her. 
 
¶4.  (U) On October 4, 2006, the day after she was released and 
before the state could file another FIR, Sharmila went to New 
Delhi to continue her hunger-strike and to conduct her protest 
in the national capital.  New Delhi police immediately arrested 
her under Section 309 of the IPC and kept her under police 
custody.  She was admitted to hospital due to her deteriorating 
health.  Following an appeal by Sharmila's lawyers, New Delhi 
High Court passed an order allowing her to return to Manipur if 
her health permitted.  On March 6, Sharmila returned to Manipur 
and was rearrested and hospitalized.  Meanwhile, Delhi police 
filed a charge-sheet on her case and submitted a report to the 
court.  Summoned back to New Delhi, Sharmila appeared before the 
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on May 11.  She was 
released on bail and the New Delhi court directed that she may 
have to appear again as required.  On May 13, Sharmila returned 
to Imphal and continues to be held under detention by the 
Manipur police in a secure ward of the government hospital. 
 
 
KOLKATA 00000167  002 OF 005 
 
 
 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Sharmila said she returned to Imphal with the hope 
that the AFSPA would be repealed, as was assured by a number of 
state political leaders prior to the state assembly elections in 
February.  However on March 19, a resolution by opposition 
legislators urging the GOI to repeal the act was defeated in the 
Manipur Assembly.   Congress Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh 
told the Assembly that due to the deteriorating law and order 
situation the state, the Manipur government had to retain the 
act and did so with the support of the Central government.  He 
said the AFSPA would be repealed if the situation in Manipur 
improved, and reiterated that the state government alone could 
not tackle the insurgency problem. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
The AFSPA -- Killings, Rape, Torture, and Illegal Detention 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The AFSPA, a law utilized in "disturbed areas," 
including large parts of Northeast India and Kashmir, has 
facilitated serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial 
executions, disappearances, rape and torture, by granting the 
security forces sweeping powers.  The AFSPA permits security 
forces to make warrantless arrests and gives them authorization 
to shoot to kill even when members of the security forces are 
not in danger.  One of the chief complaints against the AFSPA is 
that it allows security forces to act with impunity as no person 
can initiate legal proceedings against members of the armed 
forces for actions taken under the AFSPA without first receiving 
permission from the Central Government. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The AFSPA has its roots in a British colonial 
ordinance, called the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance 
promulgated in 1942 to suppress the "Quit India Movement."  The 
act itself began as the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special 
Powers Ordinance, 1958 that came into force in May 1958, and was 
passed by Parliament in September that year.  The act remains in 
force for one year and is renewed annually.  In 1972, the AFSPA 
was amended to confer the power to declare an area as 
"disturbed" to the Governor, who represents the Center in each 
state (this power was previously vested in the state government) 
and permits lower enlisted, rather than just officers, the 
authority to decide on the use of deadly force.  The amendment 
also extended the AFSPA to other states in the Northeast.  The 
same law was introduced in Jammu and Kashmir in December 1990. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) According to the AFSPA, "if the Governor~is of the 
opinion that the whole or any part of the State of Assam or the 
Union Territory of Manipur, as the case may be, is in such a 
disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of armed forces in 
aid of the civil powers is necessary, he may, by notification in 
the Official Gazette, declare the whole or any part of the State 
or Union territory to be a disturbed area. 
 
"Any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non commissioned 
officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the Armed 
Forces may, in a disturbed area, 
 
(a) if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the 
maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning as he 
may consider necessary, fire upon or otherwise use force, even 
to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in 
contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in 
the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more 
persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being 
used as weapons or of fire-arms, ammunition or explosive 
substances; 
 
(b) if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, destroy 
any arms dump, prepared or fortified position or shelter from 
which armed attacks are made or are likely to be made or are 
attempted to be made, or any structure used as a training camp 
for armed volunteers or utilized as a hide-out by armed gangs or 
 
KOLKATA 00000167  003 OF 005 
 
 
absconders wanted for any offence; 
 
(c) arrest, without warrant, any person who has committed a 
cognizable offense or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists 
that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence 
and may use such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest; 
 (d) enter and search without warrant any premises to make any 
such arrest as aforesaid or to recover any person believed to be 
wrongfully restrained or any arms, ammunition or explosive 
substances believed to be unlawfully kept in such premises and 
may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. 
 
"Any person arrested and taken into custody under this act shall 
be made over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police 
station with the least possible delay, together with a report of 
the circumstances occasioning the arrest.  No prosecution, suit 
or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the 
previous sanction of the Central Government against any person 
in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise 
of the powers conferred by this Act." 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The AFSPA has had a significant negative impact on the 
human rights situation in Manipur.  Human rights activists claim 
that hundreds have been killed, mutilated and raped in Manipur 
under cover of the AFSPA.  In 2007 alone, there have already 
been a number of alleged human rights violations as compiled by 
the Manipur based NGO Human Rights Alert: 
 
-- On January 31, four male villagers were digging in the church 
campus of Khoken village.  Ten village girls were helping remove 
the dirt.  Two Assam Rifles personnel entered the campus and 
opened fire without warning, on suspicion that the villagers 
were insurgents.  Three villagers were injured.  Subsequently, 
additional Assam Rifles personnel came to the church campus and 
took the injured villagers to Imphal.  Villager Henpu Singsit, 
who had been shot in the chest, died on the way to the hospital. 
 
 
-- On February 2, an "encounter" took place between the Indian 
Border Security Force (BSF) at Mayai Leikai, Heirok and cadres 
of the proscribed People's Liberation Army (PLA).  The BSF 
entered the house of Wairokpam Ibosana the next day and forced 
the family and neighbors to sit outside for questioning. 
Ibosana was singled out and accused of sheltering underground 
PLA cadres.  He was beaten severely and taken to the BSF camp 
and later handed to the local police. 
 
-- On February 8, Ashangbam Shyamchand and his friends were shot 
at by police commandos while they were shopping at Lamlai Bazar. 
 Shyamchand was killed and 14 local youths were picked up from 
the area by police commandos and detained in custody. 
 
-- On March 13, Nengneikim Haokip was attacked by a soldier 
while she was washing clothes at a spring and raped after she 
lost consciousness.  She later lodged a complaint at an Assam 
Rifles post at Kotlien.  The next day, villagers captured the 
accused soldier, but he fled to the Assam Rifles post. 
Approximatley 200 women surrounded the post demanding the rapist 
be handed over to them.  Security personnel attacked and beat 
the protestors. 
 
-- March 25-26, Assam Rifles personnel entered the house of 
Elangbam Dhanabir and assaulted him.  He was taken away without 
an arrest warrant.  Later, he was handed over to the Thoubal 
Police Station and charged with being a member of the United 
National Liberation Front (UNLF). 
 
-- On April 6, three youths riding a motorcycle were chased and 
shot at by a police paramilitary team on duty at Kwakeithel 
market, presumably on suspicion that they were insurgents.  When 
local women rushed towards the victims, the police fired blanks 
to disperse them.  Later, police issued a statement that the 
three youths were killed in self defense as they had thrown hand 
grenades at the police pursuing them.  A citizen's Joint Action 
Committee submitted a memorandum to the Chief Minster demanding 
a judicial inquiry, termination of the services of the 
 
KOLKATA 00000167  004 OF 005 
 
 
commandos, and compensatory payment to the victims' families. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
 
A Failed Challenge and Demands for Repeal 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) In November 1997, in response to a legal challenge to 
the AFSPA, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity 
of the AFSPA.  The court ruled that the powers given to the army 
were not "arbitrary" or "unreasonable" and that they did not 
violate the provisions of the Indian Constitution.  However, it 
ruled that the declaration of an area as "disturbed" should be 
reviewed every six months.  On the subject of "prosecution, suit 
or other legal proceeding" of army personnel subject to 
"sanction" of government permission, the court noted,  "We are 
of the view that since the order of the central government 
refusing or granting the sanction . . . is subject to judicial 
review, the central government shall pass an order giving 
reasons."  The court also ruled that safeguards in the form of a 
list of "Dos & Don'ts" for security forces are legally binding. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) For decades, human rights groups and women's 
organizations in Northeast India protested the continuing human 
rights abuses and demanded that the AFSPA be repealed.  These 
protests increased following the July 2004 sexual assault and 
death in custody of Thangjam Manorama in Manipur.  The outrage 
resulting from Manorama's killing was channeled through a 
coalition of 32 civil society organizations in Manipur called 
the Apunba Lup, and manifested itself in "naked protests" by 
Manipuri women rallying disrobed in public and self-immolation 
by some youths.  The Act was withdrawn from the limited area of 
the Imphal municipal district as a result. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Buoyed by their success, human rights activists 
nationwide began calling for the AFSPA's general repeal on the 
grounds that it violated international standards on human 
rights.  Further, they alleged that there had been an inadequate 
debate in Parliament when the act was initially introduced. 
These protests lead to the creation of the Justice Jeevan Reddy 
Committee to review the AFSPA. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------------- 
 
The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee Report 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------------- 
 
¶13.  (SBU) In November 2004, the Center appointed the 
five-member Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee to review the 
provisions and application of the AFSPA.  The Committee held 
hearings and invited comments from individuals, organizations, 
institutions and non-governmental organizations.  The 
Committee's report pointed out that although it is the 
government's duty to protect the nation from internal 
disturbance, the Central Government had an obligation to respect 
the "fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution." 
Significantly, the Committee's report recommended the repeal of 
the AFSPA, saying it was "a symbol of oppression, an object of 
hate and an instrument of discrimination and highhandedness.  It 
may be necessary for the army to remain while the act should go, 
and therefore an appropriate legal mechanism has to be devised 
to ensure protection of rights." 
 
¶14.  (SBU) The Committee recommended insertion of appropriate 
provisions into the existing Unlawful Activities (Prevention) 
Act (ULPA), 1967 (amended in 2004) as a replacement for the 
AFSPA, noting that, "The ULPA defines "terrorism" in terms which 
encompass and cover the activities of insurgent organizations in 
the Northeast.  It is designed to ban unlawful organizations, 
curb terrorist activities and the funding of terrorism, as well 
as investigation, trial and punishment of persons indulging in 
terrorist acts.  After the proposed amendments, ULPA would be 
more comprehensive and ensure that persons apprehended by the 
armed forces would be handed over immediately to the nearest 
 
KOLKATA 00000167  005 OF 005 
 
 
police station and would be tried in accordance with the 
procedural laws." 
 
¶15.  (SBU) Because the ULPA does not contain any provision 
specifying the powers, duties and procedures relevant to 
deployment of armed forces, the Committee recommended creation 
of a "Grievances Cell" as a mechanism for ensuring 
accountability of the armed forces, and noted that "There have 
been a large number of "disappearances" without warrants and 
deaths and injuries.  Information should be provided on the 
whereabouts of missing persons within 24 hours."  The Committee 
also recommended specific time and jurisdictional limits on 
armed forces presence and operations that could be reviewed and 
renewed periodically.  All of these changes could have been done 
by amendment to the existing ULPA law. 
 
¶16.  (SBU) COMMENT:  The fact that Indian officials can detain 
award-winning human rights advocate Sharmila indefinitely, with 
no reaction from the international community, is an indication 
of how the deplorable human rights situation in India's 
Northeast is hidden from general awareness.  The perpetuation of 
the AFSPA, even when found by the Reddy Commission to violate 
the "fundamental rights guaranteed by the [Indian] 
Constitution," also demonstrates the lack of serious debate 
about the AFSPA and lack of commitment by the GOI to protecting 
basic human rights in Manipur and the region.  Ironically, the 
AFSPA's purported justification, of preserving security in the 
Manipur, is actually undermined by its indiscriminate use.  The 
enforcement of the AFSPA over five decades has failed to curb 
insurgency in the Northeast and has instead intensified local 
feelings of alienation and discrimination in the affected areas. 
 Insurgent groups in the region have been able to capitalize on 
this popular discontent to further their own goals, including 
criminal activities such as extortion and kidnapping, knowing 
that the populace does not trust the security forces.  The GOI 
should repeal the AFSPA not just in the interest of retaining 
its pretense of being concerned about basic human rights but 
also in the interest of effectively responding to the 
insurgencies fueled by the resentment of AFSPA abuses. 
JARDINE