Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDIA: Murder of two social activists in Gaya, Bihar State

INDIA: Murder of two social activists in Gaya, Bihar State

January 30, 2004

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

30 January 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
UA-09-2004: INDIA: Murder of two social activists in Gaya, Bihar State

INDIA: Murder of the human rights defenders
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is gravely concerned about the murder of two social activists, Sarita and Mahesh Kant in Gaya (Bihar) on 24 January 2004. The victims were shot by the armed men on the way back to the Fatehpur Block Recouse Centre from Shabdo. The perpetrators are believed to be members of a local gang who had previously threatened them for their work in securing the equal use of land for the community in Shabdo village.

AHRC condemns such brutal killing of these activists, and urges the Government of India to investigate this case and prosecute those responsible for these deaths immediately. Please write a letter to the local authorities and request them to intervene in this matter immediately.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission
---------------------------------------------------

DETAILED INFORMATION:

Name of victims: Sarita and Mahesh Kant
Alleged perpetrators: Members of a local gang
Date of the Incident: at 7:00 p.m. on 24 January 2004
Place of the Incident: Shabdo village in Gaya, Bihar State

Case details:

Two land rights activists, Sarita and Mahesh Kant, were brutally killed on 24 January 2004 in Gaya, Bihar State. While the circumstances of this murder remain unclear, the basic facts seem to be the following: 

Sarita and Mahesh had been working for several years in Shabdo village, where they were helping the local community to achieve a sustainable and equitable use of land resources.  Sarita and Mahesh mobilized the community of Fatehpur to revive an old 45-km canal system on the Bihar-Jharkhand border, which changed the face of Shabdo village, bringing Raiputs and Dalits together in the community. They have also helped cure many of their alcohol addition and helped increase collective farming in the area. However, the local land mafia felt threatened, partly because the work of Sarita and Mahesh involved reclaiming common land that had been encroached upon by powerful gangs.  The local mafia, who are patronized by the ruling party of Bihar, threatened them to give up their work which they refused to do.

On 24 January 2004, as they did every evening, Sarita and Mahesh were travelling on a bike from Shabdo to the Fatehpur Block Resource Centre when at around 7 p.m., they were stopped by heavily armed men and shot at point blank range. The assailants were most likely members of a local gang that was threatened by the work of the two activists. Sarita died immediately, and Mahesh subsequently has died from his gun-shot wounds.

After the incident, several protests have been organized by the people. Mr. Apoorvanand, a fellow activist and protest organizer, remembered Sarita and Mahesh
as "working among the backward castes and Dalits trying to redeem the pledge we as the people of India had made to ourselves 54 years back but which was left to rot in the backyards of power by the parties who have been our rulers all these years. Safe water, wholesome food,  irrigated land, a smoothly run primary school, a clean and healthy community life-this is the least we expect from a welfare state. Instead, we have seen the state abdicating it role, leaving it to organizations and individuals like Sarita and Mahesh. They had obviously disturbed the power equation of the countryside having  educated the villagers to the extent that they started to speak for themselves, make decisions for themselves, mange their own land and school for their children, and understand and articulate their rights."

In fact, incidents of this kind are not unusual in Bihar.  Just a few weeks ago, Satyendra Dubey, a public-spirited engineer, was murdered after he attempted to expose corruption in highway construction projects.

We request that the Government of India ratify the Convention against Torture, as well as the ICCPR, and adhere to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (A/RES/53/144) to ensure that these brutal incidents do not reoccur. We further request your support of the upcoming event to honor the victims and protest this grave injustice, in the form of a national protest march from Patna to Sabdo, Gaya on 12 February 2004.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter, fax or email to the local authorities expressing your concern of this serious case.

1. Shri. A.P.J. Abdul kalam
President of India
Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001
INDIA
Fax: + 91 11 23017290,
E-mail: Pressecy@sansad.nic.in

2. Justice A.S.Anand
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
Sardar Patel Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
INDIA
Fax: +91-11-23340016 / 23366537
E-mail: nhrc@ren.nic.in

3. Smt. Rabri Devi
Chief Minister of Bihar
Tel: +91-612-2223886 / 2224784
E-mail: cmbihar@bih.nic.in


4. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative on the situation of human rights Defenders
C/o OHCHR-UNOG,
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9006

5. Ms. Asma Jahangir
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 92 42 5763 234
Fax: + 41 22 917 9006 / +92 42 5763 236
Email: webadmin.hchr@unog.ch / asmalaw@brain.net.pk

Sample letter:

Dear

Re: Murder of two social activists in Gaya (Bihar)

Name of victims: Sarita and Mahesh Kant
Alleged perpetrators: Members of a local gang
Date of the Incident: at 7:00 p.m. on 24 January 2004
Place of the Incident: Shabdo village in Gaya, Bihar State

I am shocked to hear about the brutal killing of two social land activists in Gaya (Bihar).

According to the information I have received, on 24 January 2004, Sarita and Mahesh were stopped by heavily armed men and shot at point blank range when they were traveling on a bike from Shabdo to the Fatehpur Block Resource Centre. The assailants were most likely members of a local gang that was threatened by the work of the two activists. Sarita died immediately, and Mahesh subsequently has died from his gun-shot wounds.

These killings are indicative of the lack of protection for human rights defenders in India, and the unchecked power of the authorities who murder those who threaten their own use of community land and resources.

According to Article 1 of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, "Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels."

I therefore urge you to take immediate action to locate and prosecute those responsible for shooting Sarita and Mahesh, and provide compensation to their families. I further urge the government of India to take the steps necessary to protect those who fight for the protection of human rights, so that activists can be safe to promote the freedoms of their fellow citizens. Lastly, I request the Government of India to ratify the Convention against Torture (CAT) as well as the ICCPR and adhere to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as soon as possible to ensure that these incidents do not reoccur.

For how long do the innocent people have to suffer from murder and ill treatment in India? How long must activists fear for their lives while defending basic human rights? The Government of India must take speedy and strong actions to eliminate these brutal acts of murder and injustice.

Sincerely yours



------------------------------

****

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-09-2004
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.