Home / News / Urgent Appeals / INDIA: One minor injured and another killed when Border Security Forces open fire in West Bengal
 

INDIA: One minor injured and another killed when Border Security Forces open fire in West Bengal

November 5, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

5 November 2007
------------------------------------------------------
UA-314-2007: INDIA: One minor injured and another killed when Border Security Forces open fire in West Bengal

INDIA: Extrajudicial killings; excessive use of forces and firearms; no proper investigation; impunity; denial of justice
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is deeply concerned by yet another alleged extra-judicial killing committed by the Border Security Forces (BSF) in West Bengal, India. According to the information we have received, a young man was shot dead by indiscriminate firing by BSF personnel, while another minor sustained serious gunshot wounds, in Murshidabad district, West Bengal, India on 26 June 2007. The victims were reportedly smuggling cows at the time of incident and the BSF claims that they fired for their self-defence as the victims attacked them. However, it is reported that the victims were unarmed at that time. The BSF being a paramilitary unit of the Indian defense force have no excuse to shoot to kill a person and seriously injure another even if they were committing a petty crime. Murder is not self defense. It is also in every respect morally and legally wrong. The incident depicts the causal manner in which the BSF kills people in the locality. The AHRC also notes with grave concern that the local police repeatedly refused to register the complaint of a victim's father. This case is a reflection of the impunity the BSF enjoys in the locality due to deliberate inaction by the local police or responsible investigation authorities.

CASE DETAILS:

Satyen Mondal is a 17-year-old son of Mr. Nemai Mondal and Basudeb Mondal is the son of Babulal Mondal. Both of them belong to scheduled caste community and reside in Barobigha village, Char Munsipara post office, Raninagar poice station, Murshidabad district, West Bengal state, India.

At around 12 noon on 26 June 2007, Satyen Mondal was trying to smuggle cattle along with Basudeb Mondal and some others through the India-Bangladesh border area. However, some on-duty officers of F Company, Battalion Number 90, Rajanagar Border Out Post Number 1 and 2, Border Security Force (BSF) indiscriminately opened fire on them.

Basudeb Mondal was instantly shot dead on the spot, while Satyen Mondal sustained a bullet injury on the right side of his abdomen. It is reported that one of the BSF personnel tried to kill the injured Satyen Mondal. However, another BSF officer prevented his colleague from firing and saved Satyen Mondal's life. Satyen Mondal then remained lying on the ground in a pool of blood for one and half hours, until the Company Commandant of the said BSF Out Post reached the place and ordered other officers to take him to hospital. Satyen was first admitted to the Baharampur New General Hospital, where he was transferred to the Nilratan Sarkar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata.

On June 30, he was again sent to the Baharampur New General Hospital, from where he was discharged on July 3. However, Satyen Mondal was still in poor physical condition and is not fit to walk even after prolonged treatment to date (See: Victim's Photo and his age proof certificate issued by school).

According to two eyewitnesses namely Bapan Mondal (son of Nathuram Mondal) and Manojit Mondal (son of Bhim Mondal), one of the BSF personnel snatched a sickle from one of the villagers and cut himself so that he could falsely claim that they were attacked by the victims and therefore fired at them in self defence. However, it is reported that the victims were unarmed at the time of incident.

After learning the incident, Satyen Mondal's father Mr. Nemai Mondal tried to lodge a complaint against the said BSF officers at the Raninagar police station over the telephone on June 26. However, the police refused to take his complaint. They told Mr. Nemai Mondal that he should come along with his injured son at first, if he wanted to lodge a complaint. The father then went to the said police station together with Satyen Mondal, after he was discharged from the hospital. However, the Raninagar police again refused to record the father's complaint.

According to Mr. Nemai Mondal, the BSF constable who fired at his son later visited him and collected Rupees 850 (USD 23) from him. The officer claimed that he needed the money to cover the 'treatment cost' of the injured BSF personnel during the incident, although the medical treatment cost for the employees of the BSF is covered by the government.

Satyen Mondal's family says that he joined the illegal smuggling for the first time. His family members are registered as the Below Poverty Line Card holders. Satyen lives with 5 family members; his father Nemai Mondal, his mother Mina Mondal, his two brothers Baneswar Mondal and Toton Mondal and his sister-in-law Dipika Mondal.

The family's only property was 21,600 square feet agricultural land from where they cultivated crops and received an income barely enough support their living. However, they sold the land to pay for Satyen Mondal's medical treatment. They spent more or less Rupees from 55,000 to 60,000 (from USD 1394 to USD 1521). The family is now facing tremendous financial hardships. Satyen Mondal could not complete his medical treatment due to shortage of money.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

In this case, the BSF personnel did not follow the guidelines of National Human Rights Commission in this case, neither the police were obedient to the guidelines of the Commission. In fact, this is not the first case the AHRC is reporting about the extra-judicial killing carried out by the BSF in the Indo-Bangladesh border. For further information please see UA-272-2007, UA-110-2007, UA-087-2007, UA-072-2007, UA-249-2006, UA-244-2006, UA-225-2006, UA-184-2006, UA-174-2006, UA-146-2006, UA-217-2005, UA-159-2005, UA-18-2005 and UA-173-2004. In all these cases people were allegedly shot at by the BSF. The local police never cared to investigate the case resulting in the BSF enjoying complete impunity.

Even if the BSF's version of self-defence is taken accountable in this case, when is the use of guns justified in self defence? The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials lay down the internationally-established and accepted norm that as far as possible, non-violent means must be used before shots are fired. Even then, where the use of guns is unavoidable, law-enforcement officers are supposed to exercise restraint in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and respect and preserve human life. This means that shooting in self defence is justified only "against the imminent threat of death or serious injury" or where the person is threatening to cause similar harm to others. The principles stress that, "In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life."

The principles also establish a number of other important features in the proper distribution and handling of firearms: in particular that every case of use of such weapons shall be subject to judicial and administrative review and that the commanders of the persons responsible for the shooting also have liability. "Persons affected by the use of force and firearms or their legal representatives," they add, "Shall have access to an independent process, including a judicial process [for redress]. In the event of the death of such persons, this provision shall apply to their dependants accordingly."

Murder is not self defence. To say that some teenagers had it coming because they illegally smuggled cow is to add gross insult to terrible injury. It is also in every respect morally and legally wrong. 

However, the BSF being a paramilitary unit of the Indian defense force have no excuse to shoot to kill one body and seriously injure another even if they were committing petty crime. The incident depicts the causal manner in which the BSF kills people in the locality. This is a reflection of the impunity the BSF enjoys in the locality.

Right to life cannot be denied to any person and is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and an inalienable human right. There is no law in India that justifies killing of people by the armed forces.

Moreover, the BSF being a paramilitary unit the inquiry into the incident is often limited to a departmental inquiry conducted by an immediate superior officer where neither the victim nor the relatives of the victim and even an independent witness have a role to play. Such inquires conducted within the four quarters of the BSF is a farce. Letters of concern mailed to the superior officers of the BSF concerning earlier instances of murder has not generated any result in the past. What the BSF does in their jurisdiction is duplicated by the local police within their jurisdiction as encounter killings. This callous attitude of murdering suspects to avoid all further complications has resulted in an ever increasing number of extra judicial killings in India.
The AHRC notes that the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials also contain the following two provisions:

"Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.

"Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles."

The cases below are human rights abuses committed by the BSF, which the AHRC reported since this March. 

UA-251-2007: INDIA: A villager mowed down and drowned by the Border Security Force in West Bengal
UA-214-2007: INDIA: A foreigner allegedly raped by the Border Security Force in West Bengal
UA-203-2007: INDIA: Elected representatives abused and assaulted by the Border Security Force
UA-157-2007: INDIA: An ailing man died in the custody of Border Security Force (BSF) due to lack of medical help
UA-073-2007: INDIA: Alleged assault and sexual harassment of a man by the Border Security Force

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please immediately write to the relevant local authorities and express your deep concern about this serious case. Please strongly demand an independent and thorough investigation into this case so that the alleged perpetrators be brought to justice without further delay.

To support this appeal, please click here:

Sample letter:

Dear __________,

INDIA: One minor injured and the other killed by the firing of the Border Security Forces in West Bengal

Name of victims:
1. Mr. Satyen Mondal, son of Mr. Nemai Mondal, aged 17, belongs to scheduled caste community
2. Mr. Basudeb Mondal, son of Babulal Mondal, belongs to scheduled caste community
(Both victims are the residents of Barobigha village, Char Munsipara post office, Raninagar poice station, Murshidabad distridt, West Bengal state, India)
Alleged perpetrators: 
1. Duty Officers of F Company, Battalion Number 90, Rajanagar Border Out Post number 1 and 2, Border Security Force (BSF) under Raninagar police station, Murshidabad district on 26 June 2007
2. Officer-in-Charge (OC) of the Raninagar police station, Murshidabad district
Date of incident: About 12 noon on 26 June 2007
Place of incident: Area between Rajanagar Border Out Post Number 1 and 2, the Border Security Force (BSF) in the jurisdiction of Raninagar Police Station, Murshidabad district

I am writing to you to express my deep concern about yet another alleged extra-judicial killing committed by the Border Security Forces (BSF) in West Bengal, India.

According to the information we have received, one young man named Mr. Basudeb Mondal was shot dead by in discriminative firing by the BSF personnel, while another 17-year-old minor named Mr. Satyen Mondal sustained serious gunshot injury, in Murshidabad district, West Bengal, India on 26 June 2007.

The victims were reportedly smuggling cows at the time of incident and the BSF claims that they fired for their self-defence as the victims attacked them. However, according to the eyewitnesses namely Bapan Mondal (son of Nathuram Mondal) and Manojit Mondal (son of Bhim Mondal), the victims were unarmed at that time. The witnesses also say that one of the BSF personnel snatched a sickle from one of the villagers and slightly cut his body to falsely claim that they were attacked by the victims. 

On June 26, Satyen was first admitted to the Baharampur New General Hospital, where he was transferred to the Nilratan Sarkar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. On June 30, he was again sent to the Baharampur New General Hospital, from where he was discharged on July 3. Satyen Mondal's family sold their only property, 21,600 square feet agricultural land, to pay for Satyen Mondal's medical treatment.  The family is now facing tremendous financial hardships. Satyen Mondal could not complete his medical treatment due to shortage of money. Subsequently, he is not fit to walk even after prolonged treatment to date and is bound to live in maimed condition.

I am also concerned by the deliberate negligence by the local police into this case. According to Satyen Mondal's father Mr. Nemai Mondal, the Raninagar police refused to take action into his complaint over the telephone on June 26. The police told Mr. Nemai Mondal that he should come along with his injured son at first, if he wanted to lodge a complaint. The father then went to the said police station together with Satyen Mondal, after he was discharged from the hospital. However, the Raninagar police again refused to record the father's complaint. To date, no serious action has yet been taken to investigate this incident.

The BSF being a paramilitary unit of the Indian defense force have no excuse to shoot to kill one body and seriously injure another even if they were committing petty crime. Murder is not self defence. It is also in every respect morally and legally wrong. The incident depicts the causal manner in which the BSF kills people in the locality. This case is also a reflection of the impunity the BSF enjoys in the locality due to deliberate inaction by the local police or responsible investigation authorities. In this case, the BSF personnel did not follow the guidelines of National Human Rights Commission in this case, neither the police were obedient to the guidelines of the Commission.

I would like to draw your attention that UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials stresses that  non-violent means must be used before shots are fired and stress that, "In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life."

Right to life cannot be denied to any person and is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and an inalienable human right. There is no law in India that justifies killing of people by the armed forces.

I am deeply concerned that this is not the first case of the alleged extra-judicial killing carried out by the BSF in the Indo-Bangladesh border. I have received several similar cases from the Asian Human Rights Commission based on Hong Kong for the last 2 years.

I would like to draw your attention that the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials also contain the provision that "Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law."

In light of above, I strongly demand that the police case for murder under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the responsible BSF personnel should be immediately registered at Ranninagar police station and this case must be investigated by Crime Investigation Department (CID) to insure the accountability of the investigation. I also urge you to ensure that the entire matter is to be scanned under Magisterial (Judicial) inquiry. I also demand that the responsible BSF personnel must be suspended from the service during the pending criminal investigation. I further request you to take appropriate action to ensure that the victims' families receive adequate compensation. The police officers who refused to register the complaint of the victim's family must also be punished with departmental sanction as well as with legal action for negligent act and failure to discharge their duties in accordance with law. Lastly, I strongly urge the Government of India to take genuine action to stop abusive use of force and firearms by the BSF personnel and make their criminal offence punishable under the law.

I look forward to your prompt action in this case.

Yours sincerely,


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

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Honorable Chief Justice
Calcutta High Court
Kolkata, West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: 91 33 22429158

2. Mr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee
Chief Minister/ Minister of Home Department
Government of West Bengal
Writer's Building
Kolkata - 700 001
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 2214 5480/ 2214 1341

3. Chief Secretary
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Buildings, Kolkata - 700001
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 22144328

4. Home Secretary
Government of West Bengal
Writers' Buildings, Kolkata - 700001
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 22143001
Email: sechome@wb.gov.in

5. Director General & Inspector General of Police
Government of West Bengal
Writers Buildings
Kolkata-1
West Bengal
INDIA
Fax: +91 33 2214 4498 / 2214 5486

6. Justice Mr. Rajendra Babu
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi 110001
INDIA
Fax + 91 11 2338 6521
Email: chairnhrc@nic.in 

7. Mr. Ajay Raj Sharma
Director General BSF
Block 10, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi -03.
Fax: +91 11 24360016
Email: bsfhq@hub.nic.in

8. Mr. Philip Alston
Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions
Room 3-016
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9155
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS)

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Progrramme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-314-2007
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.