Monthly Archives: July 2020

Key Points

On July 1, 2020, the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury issued a joint advisory on the Risks and Considerations for Businesses with Supply Chain Exposure to Entities Engaged in Forced Labor and Other Human Rights Abuses in Xinjiang. The advisory follows months of increased attention by Congress, the Trump administration, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) on labor conditions in Xinjiang and the treatment of Uyghurs and members of Muslim minority groups in China. Specifically, the advisory describes a range of specific abuses including mass arbitrary detentions, severe physical and psychological abuse, forced labor and other labor abuses, oppressive surveillance used arbitrarily or unlawfully, religious persecution, political indoctrination, forced sterilization, and other infringements of the rights of members of those groups in Xinjiang. The advisory also describes how these concerns are, in the words of Secretary of State Pompeo, no longer confined to the Xinjiang region but spread across China through government-facilitated arrangements with private sector suppliers.

Against this backdrop, the agencies warn businesses of the reputational, economic, and legal risks of involvement with entities that engage in human rights abuses, including but not limited to forced labor in the manufacture of goods intended for domestic and international distribution. The agencies specifically call on [b]usinesses, individuals, and other persons, including but not limited to academic institutions, research service providers, and investors [businesses and individuals] that choose to operate in Xinjiang or engage with entities that use labor from Xinjiang elsewhere in China to heed the warnings in the advisory and implement human rights-related due diligence policies and procedures.

Towards this end, while the advisory itself is explanatory only and does not have the force of law, the agencies outline a range of ongoing U.S. government efforts to curb alleged human rights abuses related to Xinjiang in the areas of import and export controls and financial sanctions. They also provide specific guidance to importers, exporters, and financial institutions on how to identify Xinjiang-related risks. The advisory further urges businesses and individuals to evaluate their exposure to Xinjiang-related risks and to the extent necessary, implement due diligence policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure that their compliance practices are commensurate with identified risks and international best practice across the upstream and downstream supply chain, and in making investment decisions.

In particular, the advisory highlights three types of supply chain exposure that broadly track export, import, and financial activities implicating Xinjiang:

(1) Assisting in developing surveillance tools for the PRC government in Xinjiang.

(2) Relying on labor or goods sourced in Xinjiang, or from factories elsewhere in China implicated in the forced labor of individuals from Xinjiang in their supply chains, given the prevalence of forced labor and other labor abuses in the region.

(3) Aiding in the construction of internment facilities used to detain Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority groups, and/or in the construction of manufacturing facilities that are in close proximity to camps operated by businesses accepting subsidies from the PRC government to subject minority groups to forced labor.

On the subject of surveillance, the advisory recounts recent efforts by the Department of Commerce to list and leverage Entity List restrictions against a range of Chinese technology companies and public security bureaus allegedly implicated in human rights violations and abuses in Xinjiang. The advisory goes on to describe the Xinjiang surveillance infrastructure as an unprecedented, intrusive, high-technology surveillance system across Xinjiang, as part of a province-wide apparatus of oppression aimed primarily against traditionally Muslim minority groups. According to the advisory, this system is enabled by technologies including artificial intelligence, facial recognition, gait recognition, and infrared technology, as well as mobile apps used by police to track personal data about Xinjiang residents and cloud databases used to centralize collected information. The advisory notes the role of Chinese surveillance and technology companies supported by PRC government contracts, but also points to evidence that these [Chinese] businesses also get support from foreign academics, scientists, businesses, and investors.

With respect to these concerns, the advisory warns that businesses and individuals engaged in certain activities or who are otherwise directly linked to those in Xinjiang engaged in certain listed activities may face reputational risks and/or trigger U.S. law enforcement or other actions.... These activities include:

On the subject of forced labor, the advisory and related comments by Acting DHS Deputy Secretary Ken Cucinelli recount various recent and ongoing efforts by the Trump administration and Congress to increase scrutiny and enforcement related to labor conditions in Xinjiang and for Muslim minorities throughout the PRC.

As we described in our publication on this topic in March of this year, 2019 marked an uptick in DHS attention to and enforcement of forced labor authorities, beginning with a memorandum of understanding between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Liberty Shared in July 2019 and culminating in Customs and Border Protections (CBP) issuance on September 30, 2019, of what would be the first of a string of Xinjiang-related WROs. Following a series of congressional hearings and NGO activity in late 2019 calling for further scrutiny of labor conditions in Xinjiang, DHS released a formal strategy describing its commitment to combatting human trafficking and forced labor on January 15, 2020, which included among five key goals leveraging DHS law enforcement and national security authorities to investigate, take enforcement action, and refer [human trafficking and forced labor] cases for prosecution. Since CBPs September WRO, it went on to issue additional Xinjiang-related WROs on May 1 and June 17, 2020, and announced on July 1 the seizure of nearly 13 tons of hair worth more than $800,000 that it suspects may have been produced using forced child labor and imprisonment. In describing the seizure, Brenda Smith, CBPs Executive Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Trade, said that [i]t is absolutely essential that American importers ensure that the integrity of their supply chain meets the humane and ethical standards expected by the American government and by American consumers (CBP, July 1).

In Congress, Rep. McGovern and Sen. Rubio introduced, with bipartisan support, companion bills entitled the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (Bill Text,Reuters, March 11), which would, if enacted as written, create significant obligations and restrictions for textile and other importers with supply chains connected directly or indirectly to Xinjiang. While the bills remain pending in Congress, they continue to gain co-sponsors and in some respects have had their political paths cleared by the passage and enactment on June 17, 2020, of the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 (S. 3744), which received overwhelming support in both the House and Senate before being signed by President Trump. As noted in the advisory, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act directs the President to impose sanctions on each foreign person the President determines is responsible for certain actions with respect to specified ethnic Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang region in China.

Against this backdrop, the advisory focuses on several areas of PRC government activity contributing to forced labor conditions in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China, including:

(1) The governments mutual pairing assistance program linking companies from eastern China to factories in Xinjiang (described further in Annex 2 of the advisory).

(2) Involuntary transfers of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities from Xinjiang to factories across China (described in Annex 3 of the advisory).

(3) The use of prison labor in the cotton, apparel, and agricultural sectors (described further in Annex 4 of the advisory).

To aid businesses and individuals in identifying and evaluating forced labor risks, the advisory goes on to describe six potential indicators of forced labor or labor abuses, including:

The advisory also includes (Annex 3) a nonexhaustive but illustrative list of industries in Xinjiang reported to be involved in labor abuses, including:

Finally, the advisory discusses certain due diligence strategies and challenges for identifying and evaluating Xinjiang-related supply chain exposure. For example, the advisory describes the role and limits of third-party audits as credible sources of information for indicators of labor abuses in light of repressive conditions on the ground. It further encourages businesses and individuals to collaborate with industry groups to share information, develop Chinese language research capabilities, and build relationships with Chinese suppliers and recipients of U.S. goods and services to understand their possible relationships in Xinjiang under the mutual pairing assistance program. The advisory also points to several forced labor and human trafficking due diligence tools produced by the Departments of Labor, State, and Justice, among others (see our March publication for additional resources, including a summary of CBPsnine-step processfor initiating and adjudicating forced labor allegations).

As described in the advisory, the foundational authority for regulating imports of goods produced from forced labor is found in Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) (see our earlier Client Alert on Section 307here). This law prohibits the importation of [a]ll goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labor[,] forced labor[, or] indentured labor, which includes forced or indentured child labor. Such merchandise is not only subject to exclusion and seizure; its importation may lead to criminal investigation of the importer and other parties involved in the import transactionand the imposition of civil or criminal penalties (e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1592 (penalties for fraud, gross negligence, or negligence) and 18 U.S.C. 545 (smuggling goods in the United States)).

In addition to the advisorys guidance for the import and export communities, it also urges entities with banking ties to the U.S. financial system to be aware of requirements for financial institutions to adopt risk-based antimoney laundering, counter terrorist financing, and countering proliferation financing (AML/CFT/CPF) programs to identify, assess, and mitigate risks related to those regulatory regimes. The advisory specifically urges financial institutions to assess their potential exposure to the risk of handling the proceeds of forced labor on behalf of their clients and, as appropriate, implement a mitigation process in line with the risk. As noted in the advisory, money laundering crimes generally require the involvement of proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, which may include sex trafficking, forced labor, and other crimes related to trafficking in persons.

To address these risks, the advisory recommends that financial institutions:

In addition, all U.S. persons and financial institutions with ties to the U.S. financial system must comply with U.S. economic sanctions administered by the Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

On July 9, OFAC and the State Department took the first concrete Xinjiang-related actions following the July 1 joint advisory. OFAC sanctioned four PRC officials and one Public Security Bureau pursuant to Executive Order 13818, which implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (OFAC Press Release). These individuals and entities include:

As a result of the designations, U.S. persons are broadly prohibited from dealing with these persons and entities that are 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) (collectively, blocked persons), absent a license from OFAC. U.S. persons must also block and report to OFAC any such property that is in, or comes into, their possession or control.

Also on July 9, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo designated Quanguo, Hailun, and Mingshan under Section 7031(c) of the FY 2020 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act; as a result, they and their immediate family members are ineligible for entry into the United States (State Department Press Release). Secretary Pompeo indicated that he is also placing additional visa restrictions on other CCP officials believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, the unjust detention or abuse of Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and members of other minority groups in Xinjiang pursuant to the State Departments October 2019 visa restriction policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Continue reading here:

U.S. Agencies Issue Business Advisory Warning of Xinjiang-Related Supply Chain Exposure and OFAC Imposes Blocking Sanctions on Chinese Persons Related...

The ongoing awakening to the long-standing realities of discrimination against African Americans is marked by a scope and intensity that were unimaginable even one month ago. Polling shows a significant increase from 2015 among Americans who believe racial and ethnic discrimination in the United States are big problems, and widespread protestsincluding in rural and suburban communities where such activism is unprecedentedagainst systemic racism and police misconduct have erupted. The United States has thus entered a window of opportunity where real social change is more likely than at any time in recent history.

But are there foreign-policy implications for this moment? Could this enhanced recognition of racial discrimination at home result in meaningful differences in how the United States engages with the world? Its tempting to think sobut the answer to both questions is almost certainly no. The structural impediments to more seriously accounting for social justice and human rights in foreign policy are simply too great.

There are at least four such structural factors. First, the composition of foreign-policy shapers (think tank experts, columnists) and implementers (government officials) remains disproportionately white (and male). This is visibly evident from any photograph of senior military officials. But it also pronounced in Americas diplomatic corps. In 2002, 70 percent of all State Department employees were white; by September 2018, it remained nearly unchanged at 68 percent. Moreover, in 2018, the more senior the role, the greater the proportion of employees who were whitegoing from 35 percent for midlevel GS-10 rank up to 87 percent for the most senior civil service executives.

This relatively homogenous composition of the foreign-policy eliteincluding yours trulymatters because the recognition of racial oppression at home and abroad is a glaring blind spot. In 20-plus years of working at academic institutions and think tanks, I can recall very few mentions of race. And even these observations were made not out of inherent concern for racial underrepresentation or discrimination within the United States but because the lack of progress toward combating those twin evils could lessen Americas relative power on the international stage.

Second, the predominant frame through which foreign-policy debates are conveyed is as national security interests. These seemingly neutral concepts are conveyed through principles or objectives, ranked by their purported interest-ness: vital, extremely important, important, or secondary. Those categories come from a landmark 2000 report by the Commission on Americas National Interests, which was representative of many comparable bipartisan initiatives. The 23-member commission included just three women, one of whom was the only person of color (Condoleezza Rice). The sole mention of individual rightsone of 10 important national interestswas in promoting pluralism, freedom, and democracy in strategically important states as much as is feasible without destabilization. The caveats that this august group of geostrategic thinkers added on demonstrate that rights are not universal and should never hinder stabilitymeaning a government that endorses U.S. interests retains power.

Though the facts shift, and allies and adversaries come and go, the narrative of Americas global role is always conveyed via static interests, which remain wholly uninformed by human rights concernsunless it can be weaponized selectively to highlight an adversarys human rights abuses. Foreign policy cannot be reconfigured in enduring and impactful ways without updating the thinking and language that could enable such change.

Third, and relatedly, a consistently missing element in elite foreign-policy debates is the livelihoods of actual humans. The central unit of analysis is countries, which are overwhelmingly evaluated through the words and actions of their leaders. When people are considered at all, it is as demographic clusters that might influence the countries or regions where they residethe Arab youth bulge, Russias population decline, and Chinas graying citizenry are popular examples. So-called voices from the regions are those few media-tested, English-speaking people who reside in the rolodexes of TV producers, serve as visiting think tank fellows, or are escorted through Capitol Hill offices by K Street lobbyists.

Without a reimagining of Americas global influence from the perspective of the individuals who experience hatred, bigotry, and oppression, it is impossible to conceive of a foreign policy that ever truly confronts racism.

Finally, the defining manifestation of U.S. foreign policy for 75 years has been the threat or use of military force. The global architecture required to use force anywhere at any time requires host nation basing and overflight permissions. These, in turn, require permanently stationing U.S. troops abroad, which increases civil wars and enables human rights violations by host nation governments. These governments enjoy military assistance in the form of arms sales. According to the State Departments latest World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers report, the United States is the top arms exporter to the least democratic countries (meaning those in the lowest quintile as determined by Polity Project rankings)accounting for 66 percent of all such sales. In short, to project military power, the United States tolerates or abets subjugation.

Moreover, military spending ($712 billion) absorbs more than half of all federal discretionary spending, towering over the diplomacy and development budget ($48 billion), which could be far better suited to promoting individual rights and freedoms globally. Unfortunately, when you review what country receives the most foreign assistance from the United States, it is a conspicuous list of occupiers, autocrats, and illiberal regimes. The top six proposed recipients for 2020, in order, are: Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Uganda. These are so-called strategic partners showered with aid because of their geographic location, security partnerships, or a consequence of great-power competition (Uganda). Congress could vastly increase funding for international and nongovernmental organizations that work to protect groups experiencing prejudice and seriously hold recipients of foreign aid to account for their human rights violations. But there is nothing in recent history to suggest that legislators will fulfill this needed role or even its most basic oversight functions.

For these four reasons, and many others, an overdue turn toward an individual, rights-centric foreign policy is unimaginable, at least for now. The current defensiveness among elite foreign-policy institutions toward considering the role that race plays in U.S. foreign policy is simply too overwhelming. A more diverse group of future foreign-policy thinkers and leaders could one day lead the waybut that group wont arrive in time to keep pace with the current push for racial justice across the rest of U.S. society.

See the original post here:

From National Interests to the Diplomatic Elite, the Foreign-Policy Blob Is Structurally Racist - Foreign Policy

It is said that when Benjamin Franklin emerged from the concluding session of the Constitutional Convention, one Mrs. Powell asked him, What have you given us?

A Republic, he responded, if you can keep it.

That claim, of course, stood glossed by the trenchant irony that, at that point in 1787, the American constitution framed in Independence Hall in Philadelphia did not include the right to vote for American women.

Only after heroic struggles by American suffragettes was that right realised in 1920.

Just as the formal right granted in 1870 to African-American men to vote was actually to fructify as late as 1965 when the Voting Rights Bill was passed.

Yet, some 230 years after the adoption of the American constitution, the United States under the Trump presidency can be seen to be embroiled in another historic battle to preserve the republic and all its democratic and institutional accomplishments.

The situation in India is not too different.

The Indian constitution granted the right to universal adult franchise from its very inception, transcending some stiff opposition from deeply conservative sections of the Constituent Assembly.

The Constitution of India. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

A pivotal aspect of that revolutionary accomplishment was the new emphasis on expanding literacy in order to lift the mass of Indians out of ignorance and render their exercise of franchise sentient and independent. Long decades of struggle were finally to culminate in the legislation by parliament on August 4, 2009, which made access to free school education a legally enforceable right.

Needless to say, that education about republican values and citizens struggles to realise them is transmitted to students in academic institutions through a study of social and political science curriculum, and, overall, through a study of the history of cultural oppressions and aspirations.

Those histories also teach us that when nation-states come to centralise economic and political power, the existence and sanctity of democratic institutions and imperatives notwithstanding, it is not the hard sciences that offer much resistance. Such resistance invariably comes from the social scientists and historians who insist on educating us about the non-negotiable status of republican goals and the required modes of governmental conduct thereof.

Also read: The Republic at 71: Faced With an Unbending Government, Indians Continue to Speak Out

Caveat: There was a time when the hard sciences became the chief instruments of progressive historical transformation (recall Copernicus and all those that followed in changing irretrievably our consciousness of material forces and phenomenon). But, as the new revolutionary classes settled down to profit accumulation, science needed to be reduced suitably to technologies that would no longer ask humanist questions but serve the interests of endowed classes.

For a century or more now, the burden of humanist scrutiny has been carried forward by historians and social scientists. One must always remember that many historians and social scientists have, nonetheless, continued to owe allegiance to revanchist and reactionary structures of thought.

Closed authority structures then develop a vested interest in keeping from citizens critical knowledge of social and political formations and of constitutional values that pertain to principles of republican democracy, even while they obtain executive legitimacy from democratic forms of government formation. The possibility of such a degradation of liberal archives of politics into authoritarianism was eloquently explored by Horkheimer and Adorno in their path-breaking Dialectic of Enlightenment.

Such authorities begin to clip the wings of the sources of progressive humanist knowledge by either cutting resources to the social sciences, or by taking recourse to sundry strong-arm methods available to the state. But, most of all, by reformulating schools curricula to the states ideological requirements.

A demonstrator attends a protest against riots following clashes between people demonstrating for and against a new citizenship law in New Delhi, India, March 3, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

Within any educational system, it is a given that the content and quality of curricula suggest what authorities who frame those curricula think to be desirable or deleterious to the development of citizens cognitive allegiance to the ideological preferences of ruling social forces.

And, exclusions from the curricula are often far more indicative of the bent of those authorities than the inclusions.

In that context, the shredding of subjects inscribed in the Social Science, Political Science, and History text books of class 9, 10, and 11 of Indian schools just announced by the Central Board of School Education (CBSE) on directive from the Minister of Human Resource Development, no less, must be seen as a telling pointer to the priorities of the present central government.

Also read: Chapters on Citizenship, Secularism, Federalism Scrapped as CBSE Prunes Syllabus for COVID

Arguing that the burden on senior school students needs to be reduced, for the year 2020-2021 In view of the disruption caused by the COVID-19 calamity, it is proposed that subjects like, inter alia, Democracy and Diversity, Gender, Religion, Caste, Popular Struggles and Movements, Challenges to Democracy, Citizenship, Nationalism, Secularism, Federalism, Planning Commission and Five-Year Plans, Peasants, Zamindars, and the State, Understanding Partition, and Mathematical Reason be excluded from the existing curriculum for purposes of examinations.

In effect, all those materials that bear on the formation of republican citizenship, a republican constitution, and a critical understanding of how we came to be and who we are, and what our role as citizens of a republic is in upholding republican principles are to be ejected as matters of lesser consequence than the imbibing of supposedly ideologically neutral skills. The ejection of such materials, of course, reveals how frustrated authorities are with their critical and social import.

All this of course falls pat within the intellectual parameters of a nationalism that looks upon open liberal enquiry into state formations as anathema. In so far as such enquiry often brings into question the unanalysed or tendentious economic, cultural and historical predilections of closed authority structures, it is always the social sciences and truthful history writing that present the most obstacles to the closure of the governing arrangements of autocratic rule.

Also read: CBSEs Deletion of Chapters on Ecology, Evolution During Pandemic Ironic, Say Biologists

It should be clear from the above list of exclusions that the bad and the ugly must be jettisoned from study and deliberation; unsurprisingly, all of these exclusions impinge on the right of diverse oppressed segments of the citizenry to learn of both their sources of oppression and their republican rights and prerogatives.

Coming as this does in the wake of what we have seen of the plight of millions of trudging immigrantsan instructive episode that brought to the fore the continuing fault lines of caste, class, gender, and religious identitythe diktat seems to announce a clampdown on such learning and pedagogy that may raise questions of macro-historical distress and discrimination that continue to plague the republic.

Note that the honourable minster does not include such subjects in the core values of education or of learning achievement.

Just as one wonders what Franklin may have thought of the current goings-on in the American Republic, one may wonder what the founding fathers of the Indian freedom movement and the framers of the Indian Constitution may have thought of these revanchist moves in the substance and conduct of Indian school education.

John Dewey, that doyen of educationists, once wrote that the true aim and purpose of education is education.

Not so.

Badri Raina has taught at Delhi University.

Read more from the original source:

Republican Values, Or Things That Students Need Not Learn - The Wire

New Delhi: Every day, an average of five people die in custody in India, with some of them succumbing to torture in police or judicial custody. 2019 was no better, as 117 people died in police custody while 1,606 deaths were recorded in judicial custody. And yet, there has not been a single conviction in the deaths of 500 persons allegedly due to torture in police custody between 2005 and 2018.

A report by the National Campaign Against Torture a platform for NGOs working on torture in India has highlighted how torture continues to remain a favoured tool in the hands of the police to extract information and confessions, or sometimes just to victimise oppressed sections of society.

The India: Annual Report on Torture 2019 has also identified `15 trends of torture and impunity which reveal how torture has also become a systemic tool of oppression, extortion and silencing dissent. Further, it alleges that high levels of criminality exist within the police and amongst jail officials.

Watch: Indias 23-Year-Old Failure to Ratify UN Convention Against Torture is Shameful

Drawing from the past, the report said with respect to the death of 500 persons remanded to police custody by court between 2005-18, 281 cases were registered and 54 policemen were chargesheeted, but not one has been convicted so far.

The report said in 2019, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recorded 1,723 cases of death in custody. It noted that most deaths in police custody occur primarily as a result of torture. Of the 125 deaths in police custody, 93 (74.4%) were due to alleged torture or foul play while 24 people (19.2%) died under suspicious circumstances such as suspected suicide (16 persons), illness (7 persons) and slipping in bathroom (1 person). Uttar Pradesh had the highest incidence of such deaths with 14 cases, followed by Tamil Nadu and Punjab with 11 cases each.

Many theft suspects allegedly tortured to death

The report also highlighted how while probing non-heinous crimes, police personnel in several states went to the extent of torturing the suspects to death. It said the practice of torturing the suspects in police custody to punish them or gather information or extract confessions continued to be rampant.

From a 17-year-old boy in Tamil Nadu, to Hira Bajania of Gujarat, Karan Kumar of Punjab, Nesar Ansari of Bihar and Ashok Bansal of Madhya Pradesh, the report cited cases where people were allegedly tortured to death only because they were suspected to have committed thefts. This apart, it pointed out how some, like Rajesh of Kerala, died by suicide as they are unable to bear such torture.

Also read: Custodial Torture: It Is the Criminal Justice System That Requires Investigation

In some cases, groups of people are also subjected to torture as the cops want to extract confessions. In this regard, the report cited the case of two Dalit brothers Deepak and Dashrath and 12 labourers, including women, of Gujarat who were tortured to extract confessions in connection with a case of murder. Often, it said, people are also tortured by cops or jail staff to extort money from them or their relatives.

Torture includes beating, pulling nails, burning and even rape

The method of torture revealed by the report show the level of criminality in the police and jail officials. It also shows how operating in closed systems, they have a sense of entitlement and impunity.

The report said from acts like slapping, kicking with boots, beating with sticks, pulling hair, torture also includes barbaric methods like hammering iron nails in the body (as in the case of Gufran Alam and Taslim Ansari of Bihar), applying roller on legs and burning (as happened to Rizwan Asad Pandit of Jammu & Kashmir), and falanga or beating with sticks on the soles (as with Rajkumar of Kerala).

Sometimes, the police and jail staff even go to the extent of stabbing people with a screwdriver (as Pradeep Tomar of Uttar Pradesh was subjected to) or giving electric shock (as with Yadav Lal Prasad of Punjab and Monu of Uttar Pradesh). Often, private parts are also targeted. There have been instances of cops pouring petrol on private parts (as in the case of Monu of Uttar Pradesh) or applying chilly powder to them (in the case of Raj Kumar of Kerala)

Sexual crimes also perpetrated by the custodians of law

As part of torture, the report pointed to cases where the victims were forced to perform oral sex (as in the case of Hira Bajania and 12 others of Gujarat). Also, it said women continue to be tortured or targeted for sexual violence in custody.

In this regard, the report said a 35-year-old Dalit woman was allegedly illegally detained, subjected to torture and raped in police custody by nine police personnel at Sardarshahar police station in Churu district of Rajasthan. Her nails were also plucked by the cops who tortured her, the report said.

Most victims from poor, marginalised sections

The report said most victims were from poor and marginalised sections and were targeted because of their socio-economic status. It said 75 of the 125 people killed in police custody belonged to such communities with 13 of them being Dalits or from tribal communities, 15 being Muslims and 37 being those who were picked up for petty crimes.

Also read: Most States Have Flouted Mandatory Judicial Inquiry into Custodial Deaths for 15 Years

After these heinous crimes of torture, the report said, the police often tries to cover up by destroying incriminating evidence of torture, not conducting post-mortems or cremating the bodies of torture victims in haste.

The NCAT recorded at least four such cases. These included the 17-year-old boy from Tamil Nadu; Hira Bajania of Gujarat, and Mangal Das of Tripura.

Even minors not spared

On how minors also end up being victims, the report said it was because the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has not been implemented properly. It pointed out that those allegedly killed due to torture include four children in police custody and one in a juvenile home.

In jails too, the report said, torture was common. In this regard, it referred to how Nabbir, an inmate of Tihar jail in Delhi was allegedly tortured by a jail superintendent who branded Om symbol into his back before depriving him of food for two days.

Torture by armed forces

The NCAT report also accused the Indian Army and Central Armed Forces deployed in the insurgency affected areas and the border areas of being involved in torture. It said Mungshang Konghay was allegedly tortured in the custody of 17th Assam Rifles at Litan in Ukhrul district of Manipur in May 2019. The victim alleged that he was tortured to make him confess that he is a member of an underground group, it added.

Similarly, it said, in June 2019, 17-year-old Tarun Mondal was allegedly tortured to death in the custody of Border Security Force (BSF) in Murshidabad district of West Bengal. Suspected of cattle smuggling, he was first shot below the knee and then beaten with boots and rifles till he fell unconscious.

Also read: Justice for Jayaraj and Bennix Means Ending a Culture of Impunity

The report also blamed armed opposition groups like those in Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland of using torture against informers. It said two people Arif Sofi of Khudwani and Mehraj Ahmed Dar were abducted by militants from their homes in Kulgam district of J&K on the suspicion of being informers. Though they were later released, one of them succumbed to his injuries.

Similarly, Hangkon Solting was tortured to death by alleged National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) (R) militants in Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh, it said. It also spoke about how Maoists use brutal killing and torture of their hostages, including after being subjected to summary trial in so-called `Jan Adalats or peoples courts, in full public view to instil fear among the people.

Centre not keen on bringing own law, ratifying UN law against torture

Finally, despite the large number of cases of torture being reported each year, the NCAT lamented that the Government of India has no intention to ratify the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) or enact a national law against torture despite the Law Commission of India submitting the draft Prevention of Torture Bill, 2017 for enactment by the parliament in October 2017.

It added that the refusal of the Supreme Court, in its judgment of September 2019, to issue directions to the Centre to enact a national anti-torture law has further emboldened the government to not ratify the UNCAT.

Read this article:

Custodial Torture Continues Unabated in India Amidst Culture of Impunity: Report - The Wire