24.06.2005 - Source:

CIA World Factbook 2004: Military [ID 7723]

"[...]Military branches:
Army, Navy (including naval air arm), Air Force, Coast Guard, various security or paramilitary forces (including Border Security Force, Assam Rifles, National Security Guards, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Special Frontier Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Railway Protection Force, and Defense Security Corps)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
16 years of age for voluntary military service (2001)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 16-49: 287,551,111 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 219,471,999 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 11,446,452 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$16.97 billion (2004)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2.5% (2004)
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

13.01.2005 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Annual report on human rights situation in 2004 ("World report 2005") [#28211],  [ID 7724]

"[...]Attacks on civilians by militant groups and Indian security forces continued unabated before and after the change in government. Notwithstanding the repeal of POTA, the government continues to use other legislation to shield security forces from accountability. Indian military, paramilitary, and police forces have engaged in serious human rights abuses not just in conflict-zones such as Kashmir, but also when
dealing with criminal suspects and detainees. [...]
Indian security forces, including the military, paramilitary forces, and the police, routinely abuse human rights with impunity. The Indian federal government rarely prosecutes army and paramilitary troops in a credible and transparent manner. The result has been an increase in serious violations by security forces throughout the country. [...]
In Kashmir, military, paramilitary, and police forces continue their practice of torturing detainees and custodial killings. There has also been a nationwide rise in allegations of extrajudicial executions by
security forces, who typically justify their actions by claiming to have killed suspects in an exchange of gunfire. [...]"

Document(s): Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Military ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 7725]

"[...]
5.41 As reflected in the US Background Note for India, August 2004, “The supreme command of the Indian armed forces is vested in the President of India. The policy concerning India’s defense, and the armed forces as a whole, is formulated and confirmed by the Union Cabinet. The Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister, consists of ministers, one of whom holds the portfolio of defense and is known as the Defence Minister.” [2f](p8)

5.42 As cited in the CIA World Factbook, updated 11 May 2004, the military consists of the army, navy, air force, Coast Guard, various security or paramilitary forces (including Border Security Force, Assam Rifles, National Security Guards, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Special Frontier Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Railway Protection Force and Defence Security Corps). [35](p12)

5.43 As reflected in the US Background Note for India, August 2004,
“The Indian Army numbers over 1.1 million strong and fields 34 divisions. Its primary task is to safeguard the territorial integrity of the country against external threats. The Army has been heavily committed in the recent past to counterterrorism operations in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the in the Northeast…. The Indian Navy is by far the most capable navy in the region. They currently operate one aircraft carrier with two on order, 14 submarines, and 15 major surface combatants…. The Indian Air Force is in the process of becoming a viable 21st century western-style force through modernization and new tactics.”[2f](p8)
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

26.05.2004 - Source: Amnesty International

Annual Report 2004 (covering 2003) ("Annual Report 2004") [#22668],  [ID 7726]

"Security legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) continued to be used to detain political opponents and members of minority populations. The lapsed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act continued to be used to arrest people in Jammu and Kashmir by linking them to cases filed before 1995. Preventive arrest and detention provisions contained in other security laws as well as in the Codeof Criminal Procedure were also misused against political and human rights activists.

There were grave concerns about recommendations of the Malimath Committee to incorporate into criminal law several provisions of the POTA which violate international human rights standards or which, if implemented, would lead to a heightened risk of human rights violations. For example, the Committee recommended that confessions recorded by a Superintendent of Police (or higher rank) which was also audio or video recorded should be admissible as evidence. Concerns that the provisions of the POTA could encourage the use of torture and ill-treatment by admitting such confessions appeared to have been realized in practice. In Gujarat several detainees alleged in court that their confessions were extracted under duress. Preventive arrests and detention continued to be used against political opponents using state legislation similar to the POTA in a numberof states including Jammu and Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka and New Delhi Union Territory. Only a handful of high-profile releases had been made by the end of the year despite a promise to review all cases of detainees held without trial for long periods under security legislation made under the Common Minimum Programme adopted by the new state government in Jammu and Kashmir."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

04.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Internal Security ("Country Report - April 2004") [#22427],  [ID 7727]

"5.21 As noted in the US Department of State report 2003 (published 2004), “The armed forces are under civilian control.” [2c](p1) According to War Resisters International, 1998 figures, India's armed forces are 1,145,000-strong. The paramilitary forces have 1,088,000 members. [21] As noted by UNHCR in a Background paper dated October 1998, each State controls its own police forces through its own home ministry. The Home Ministry of the Union Government co-ordinates the activities of the all-India bodies. These include the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (the main law enforcement body in India), the Central Detective Training School, the Central Forensic Laboratory, the Central Fingerprint Laboratory, and the National Police Academy in Mount Abu, Rajasthan, where the Indian police service is trained. It also has jurisdiction over the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Railway Protection Force and the Border Security Force. [6e](p5)"

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19765],  [ID 7728]

"Although the 28 state governments have primary responsibility for maintaining law and order, the central Government provides guidance and support through the use of paramilitary forces throughout the country. The Union Ministry for Home Affairs controls most of the paramilitary forces, the internal intelligence bureaus, and the nationwide police service; it provides training for senior police officers of the state-organized police forces. The armed forces are under civilian control. Members of the security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses; however, some officers from the security forces were held accountable for their actions during the year. [...]

According to local press reports, the number of persons killed in encounter deaths varied widely throughout the country. In March, the Home Ministry reported that there were 116 complaints of alleged encounter deaths in 2000-2001, and 92 complaints of alleged encounter deaths from 2002 until year's end. In 2002, the NHRC called for all alleged encounter deaths to be investigated immediately and asked state governments to compensate the families of the victims. The NHRC's call in 2002 for all alleged encounter deaths to be investigated immediately was not heeded, and no such body was formed during the year. The NHRC issued instructions to all state governments to take appropriate preventive measures and recommended that compensation of $22,000 (1,600,000 Rs) be paid to the families of persons killed in such cases from 1993 until year's end. In most cases reported during the year; however, $7,350 (500,000 Rs) was the amount awarded.

In addition, the NHRC issued guidelines to state governments with the goal of helping to prevent encounter deaths. However, members of the security forces rarely were held accountable for these killings. The NHRC may ask for a report from a state government, but does not have the statutory power to investigate such allegations. Human rights activists maintained that the Government increasingly substituted financial compensation to victims' families for punishment of those found guilty of illegal conduct. In some cases, victims or victims' families distrusted the military judicial system and petitioned to transfer a particular case from a military to a civil court. The authorities generally did not report encounter deaths that occurred in Jammu and Kashmir to the NHRC.
The security forces also killed many civilians during military counterinsurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir. A December Amnesty International (AI) paper indicated that security forces had reportedly killed over 250 civilians during the year. According to the Home Ministry, security forces killed 28 civilians from April 1 until June 30, and the NHRC recommended payment of compensation in 11 of these cases.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Disturbed Areas Act remained in effect in several states in which active secessionist movements exist, namely, in Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and parts of Tripura. The Disturbed Areas Act gives police extraordinary powers of arrest and detention, which, according to human rights groups, allowed security forces to operate with virtual impunity in areas under the act. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act provides search and arrest powers without warrants (see Section 1.d.)."

Document(s): Open document

28.03.2002 - Source: National Legislative Bodies

Anti-Terrorism Act (POTA), including list of allegedly terrorist organizations ("The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002") [#10882],  [ID 7729]

Document(s): Open document

20.11.2001 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), currently being debated in the parliament, gives to police forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention/ Hindu nationalism, religious intolerance and caste descrimination documented ("India Human Rights Press Backgrounder/ Anti-Terrorism Legislation") [#4860],  [ID 7730]

Document(s): Open document