Punjab Rights Forum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers. Please improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. This article has been tagged since December 2006. |
 |
Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
[edit] Introduction
The Punjab Rights Forum came into existence on June 28, 2005 at a convention held in Ludhiana, Punjab that had been organized by D.S. Gill, Chair of the International Human Rights Organisation(IHRO).[1]
The floating of the Punjab Rights Forum was largely in response to the arrests of dozens of Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) terrorists and BKI sympathizers in Punjab and New Delhi after the apprehension of Jagtar Singh Hawara, the main accused in the bombings of two cinema halls in New Delhi during May 2005. Another cause for the formation of the Punjab Rights Forum was in response to the crack down on members of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), including the party's President, Simranjit Singh Mann and activists of the Dal Khalsa following a "Genocide Remembrance Parade" that had been carried out through the streets of Amritsar on June 5 in remembrance of those Sikh civilians and terrorists that had been slain by the Indian army during Operation Bluestar. The rally on June 5 which had drew an enormous crowd and received widespread media attention across India culminated at the Akal Takht where members of the Dal Khalsa and Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) delivered "inflammatory speeches" calling for an independent Sikh state of Khalistan. Two days after the rally members of the Dal Khalsa and Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) began courting arrest on charges of sedition
The formation of the Punjab Rights Forum brought together a number of Punjab based pro-Khalistan political parties and organizations who were joined forces by a dozen odd Human Rights, Religious and Kisan (Farmers) groups in order to form a loose coalition in order to campaign on issues of human rights in the state.
[edit] Objectives
The Punjab Rights Forum (PRF), floated by D.S Gill, Chair of the Ludhiana based International Human Rights Organisation has projected itself as a "third front" to the political dominance of the Congress Party and Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) in the Punjab state. The PRF has also championed itself as a defender of the interests and affairs of the Sikh and Punjabi people against the onslaught of the Indian state, Punjab police and Hindutva ideologues.
[edit] Organizational Structure
In order to further the agenda of the Punjab Rights Forum, a 7 member co-ordinator committee was set up comprising members from some of its constituent members, namely D S Gill, Jagmohan Singh, Karnail Singh Panjoli, Surinderpal Singh, Gurdip Singh Bathinda, Rajinder Singh and Manjinder Singh Jandi. D.S. Gill was selected as the chief co-ordinator while Justice Ajit Singh Bains was chosen as the convenor of the Punjab Rights Forum.
[edit] Activities of the Punjab Rights Forum
Two major activities of the Punjab Rights Forum upon its inception were to hold a number of seminars across Punjab regarding the detention of over thirty Babbar Khalsa International terrorists and their supporters and for seeking the immediate release of Simranjit Singh Mann, President of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) and activists of the Dal Khalsa who had all been placed behind bars on charges of sedition following a pro-Khalistan rally that had been carried out through the streets of Amritsar on June 5, 2005 marking the 21st anniversary of Operation Bluestar.
The second major activity of the Punjab Rights Forum carried out soon after its creation was the organizing of a Human Rights convention in Jammu on July 30, 2005 where members of the PRF had called for and given support to the Kashmiri peoples' right to self-determination.
The PRF constituent members which had taken part in this convention included the: 1) Punjab Human Rights Organisation, 2) International Human Rights Organisation, 3) Movement Against State Repression, 4) Lawyers for Human Rights International, 5) Khalra Mission Committee, 6) Human Rights and Democracy Forum, 7) Lok Raj Sangathana (New Delhi), 8) Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), 9) Shiromani Akali Dal (Longowal), 10) Sikh Students Federation, 11) Dal Khalsa, 12) SGPC Member- Karnail Singh Panjoli, 12) Bharti Kisan Union (Rajewal), 13) Bharti Kisan Union (Ekta), 14) Sikh Nari Manch, 15) Indian Ex-services League (Panjab and Chandigarh), 16) Damdami Taksal, 17) Shriomani Khalsa Panchayat and the 18) Sikh Human Rights Group (South Asia).
[edit] PRF's Petition to National Commission for Minorities for securing minority rights and their rights over Punjab river waters
17 August 2005
Hon’ble Members National Commission for Minorities Camp Office, UT Guest House CHANDIGARH
Subject: Petition for securing minority rights, especially the Sikhs’ Separate Identity, in view of the recent Supreme Court decision, and their rights over Punjab river waters
Dear Sirs:
We, the representatives of various Sikh organisations, groups of human rights and independent opinion leaders of Punjab, working under the aegis of Punjab Rights Forum (PRF), welcome the Minority Commission’s visit after we had urged this august commission to have a first hand knowledge of the situation and circumstances prevailing in Punjab, which is being discriminated since its very inception only because it is a Sikh majority state.
Three rivers, Sutlej, Beas and Ravi flow through the Punjab. Under the traditional riparian laws, this entitles Punjab to control the distribution of these waters. But the Indian central government retains firm control and has given most of the waters to the neighbouring states of Haryana and Rajasthan. The same applies to electricity generated by the hydroelectric plant at the Bhakra-Nangal dam complex. Again, the major portion of such electricity is diverted to the neighbouring states, while industry in Punjab experiences regular shutdowns due to lack of electrical power. The state has to depend on expensive thermal power fed by coal brought from the distant Bihar State. This sort of exploitation is eroding agricultural and industrial development of Punjab.
All this apart, now a committee headed by Mr A S Chera, Director, Lok Sabha Sectariate, New Delhi, is entrusted with the task of ascertaining the opinion at large about the desirability or otherwise linking the rivers in the country. We wish to submit at the outset that we are totally opposed to any scheme of interfering with the river systems. We believe that the very process of directly seeking “the views of the public at large” is destructive of the Constitutional provisions governing the rivers and is aimed at bypassing the sovereign owners of the rivers, that is, the people of the states through the respective state Assemblies.
We think that the Centre has only a marginal role to play in respect of the rivers or the river waters. This role is subject to the specific affirmative consent of the respective State’s Assemblies. We are shocked at the way the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the role to supervise the river water linkage project. The Supreme Court has the legitimate authority to decide on the disputes between one and the other state and between one or the other states on the one hand and the centre on the other. By becoming a party to the controversial project, the apex court has deprived the state/states, likely to be aggrieved by one or other aspect or its whole concept of linkages, of a constitutional forum to adjudicate the matters. It simply means a back-door end to the separation of judiciary and executive powers in so far as the river water issue is concerned.
We are committed to restoring to Punjab its rights to river waters surreptitiously taken away to other states by the Central government over a period. We feel that the federal character of the Constitution in so far as States’ powers over rivers are concerned is being subverted under the cover of conserving water or making its optimum use or to ascertaining the opinion of the public regarding the river linkage ideas.
In any case, the people of Punjab do not want their rivers to be linked to any other river system. The state has already suffered much due to the diversion of water of its rivers to Haryana and Rajasthan. There is every justification for Punjab to terminate this wholly unconstitutional, illegal and iniquitous arrangement in the years to come.
We have also written to Mr Chera on these lines last month and now urge this Hon’ble Commission to intervene in the matter and safeguard the interests and rights of the minority region where the Sikhs are a majority community.
We in Punjab Rights Forum express our solidarity and support to the right stand taken by this commission vis-à-vis the recent decision of the Supreme Court, which has rejected the plea to notify Jains as a minority community under section 2C of the National Commission for Minority Act, thereby also erroneously equating Sikhs as part of Hindus religion. We, therefore, are ready to join hands with the commission at all fora, including the Supreme Court, to ensure that the Sikhs are a separate religious minority like Muslims, Christians, Anglo-Indians and Paris.
We also extend our full support to the Bill introduced by Rajya Sabha Member and Chairman of the Commission for the amendment of Article 25 of the Constitution.
Thanking you,
Truly yours
D S Gill Advocate (Chairperson IHRO) Surinder Pal Singh Chief Co-ordinator PRF Shiromani Khalsa Dal
Sukhdev Singh Mandhir Singh Editor-in-Chief President Aj Di Awaz Sikh Student Federation
[edit] Death Penalty: A Crime Against Humanity, Grant Amnesty to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
ON THE EVE of International Human Rights Day (10 December), the Punjab Rights Forum organised a Seminar to deliberate upon death penalty at the English Auditorium, Punjab University, Chandigarh. The speakers were Justice S. S. Kang, Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, Bikram Jeet Batra, Advocate Delhi and D. S. Gill, Chairperson, IHRO. Other participants at the Seminar included Justice Ajit Singh Bains, Chairman PHRO, Navkiran Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jaspal Singh Dhillon, Prof Jagmohan Singh and Surinder Pal Singh of the SKD. What was resolved there reads:
“Punjab Rights Forum welcomes the move of the President of India, APJ Abdul Kalam, directing the government of India to examine all issues relating to the punishment of death penalty in India. The Presidential note to the government to look into the concerns of granting amnesty, the possibility of reverting to crime by the convicted individual and the financial status of the family of the person on the death row is a step in the right direction.
“Punjab Rights Forum also welcomes the reported views of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India; YK Sabharwal that death penalty should be abolished. The PRF appeals to the Chief Justice of India to take initiative to ban death penalty in India.
“Since 111 countries of the world have abolished death penalty and it is time that India should join the ranks of such countries. We welcome the President of India and the Chief Justice of India, who will be visiting Chandigarh tomorrow. We urge them to take immediate measures to abolish death penalty for all types of crimes. The PRF today calls for a 10-year moratorium on death penalty as an interim measure, until the death penalty is abolished. The PRF appeals to the government of India to follow the example of many African countries where though the death penalty has not been abolished from the statute, but practically, there has been no execution for more than a decade.
“Punjab Rights Forum believes that the criminal justice system should be humane and punishment should not be based on retribution. We believe that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and respect for human rights. The PRF strongly adheres to the proposition that vengeance should be replaced with an opportunity to reform. There is no doubt that the death penalty is an inhumane, cruel and degrading punishment and that the right to life is a fundamental human right.
“Punjab Rights Forum appeals to the government of India to accept the advice of the President of India and to discontinue with double standards being practiced so far. India has in the last months making fervent pleas to the Pakistan government not to hang Sarbjit Singh. In the year 2003, the Indian government made desperate attempts to save Arunprakash Vaithilingam from the gallows in Singapore. Recently, the Indian state has promised the judiciary and government of Portugal that it will not hang Abu Salem, irrespective of court orders. The PRF asks the Indian state: Can such double standards continue?
“Punjab Rights Forum also condemns the trend of awarding capital punishment in India. A quick perusal of the record of death penalty in India shows that it is awarded to the poor, and members of the ethnic minorities. In recent years, four Sikhs have been awarded the death penalty on grounds, which do not pass the norms of criminal jurisprudence. Another Sikh detenue, Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar is on the death row (on the basis of a confessional statement and a non-unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court of India). Moreover, there are more than 50 people on the death row in the country. The Punjab Rights Forum calls for an immediate stoppage to this crime against humanity.”
An Open Letter to Indian Minister for Home Affairs, Shivraj Patil, written on behalf of the Punjab Rights Forum and read at the seminar urged amnesty to Prof Bhullar, adding, “We must realise that India owes justice to Prof Bhullar. Because SSP Sumed Singh Saini and his police associates picked up Prof Bhullar’s father Balwant Singh and his mother’s brother-in-law Manjit Singh and clandestinely liquidated them while three others picked up along with his father, were subjected to brutal torture? Out of them, Joginder Singh had become insane, Mohinder Singh’s hips fractured (now cannot properly walk) and Mukhtiar Singh’ legs broken. Indian justice system made mockery of their agony. Thus, justice to them remained elusive since then, while their perpetrators such as Sumed Saini and KPS Gill are being magnified day in, day out by the State. That not only the State had awarded Gold Medals to the killers in uniform of Sikh activists and but also reprieved their sentences.”
In view of these facts, the PRF in its letter, appealed to Mr Patil for taking a politically correct decision compassionately not only to commute Prof Bhullar’ death sentence but also to set him free forthwith.
What we need to do further as a follow-up is to hurry up lobbying for Prof Bhullar, with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Union Opposition leader LK Advani, NDA convener George Fernandez, besides PM, Home Minister and Law Minister. D S Gill Chair IHRO[2]
[edit] An Open Letter to Home Minister of India regarding Prof Bhullar who faces death penalty
Read by IHRO chairperson on the eve of World Human Rights Day at a Seminar ‘Death Penalty: A Crime Against Humanity’ organised by PRF at English Dept Auditorium, Punjab University, Chandigarh
09 December 2005
Mr Shivraj Patil Minister of Home Affairs NEW DELHI
Re: Granting Amnesty to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar Who is facing Death Penalty
Dear Mr Patil:
To begin with, let me make it known that I am writing this letter on behalf of the Punjab Rights Forum (PRF), a league of like minded human rights, socio-economic and religio-political groups, including political parties, representing aspirations of the people of Punjab and Sikh Diaspora; for seeking amnesty to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, who is facing Death Penalty and agonising in Tihar Jail.
As you are aware, Mr Patil, that where the judicial process ends, President (Head of State) ’s jurisdiction begins. In one’s march to justice, President is the last resort in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of that country, as we also see in India and Pakistan. Generally, Heads of States are constitutionally empowered to mitigate the errors that sometimes creep into judicial pronouncements due to certain legalistic compulsions and political prejudices.
In view of this, we in ‘Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar Defence Committee,’ representing the Sikh Panth, took up the case of Prof Bhullar with President of India in March 2003. The professor is facing gallows and has become victim of the fractured judicial judgement of the Supreme Court of India. The apex court, more than even the lower courts, took a starkly legalistic view on the death sentence given to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, in Delhi Bomb Blast Case, based on erroneous and fabricated confessional statement under TADA.
Davinder Pal Singh has been convicted of conspiracy based solely on a confession extracted under torture and repudiated by him. However, his alleged co-conspirator, Daya Singh Lahoria, was found not guilty. In criminal law, a conspiracy by definition requires at least two people. A conspiracy of one- as is the case here where Davinder Pal Singh's co-conspirator was found not guilty- is a legal fiction. Moreover, the confessional statement was signed by a thumbprint. For a man who is highly educated, the sign of a thumbprint implies duress. Furthermore, none of the 133 witnesses produced by the prosecution identified Professor Bhullar, while the case was in lower court.
Amnesty International, in its report, while recommending the Government of India to consider certain corrective measures, too, had urged the Government to "take immediate steps to abolish the death penalty totally, in furtherance of UN objective of ultimate abolition of capital punishment." Pending total abolition, AI had further asked the Indian Government to "ensure that the outstanding death sentences should be commuted, including that of Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar."
In addition, on April 28, 1999, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNHRC) overwhelmingly voted for a resolution that had called for a global moratorium on the death penalty. India is a signatory to both the UDHR and the ICCPR. Besides, the Constitution of India has enshrined the Right to Life as a Fundamental Right (Article 21). And importantly, the Evidence Act does not consider confessions made before the police officer as valid as has been in the case of Prof Bhullar.
We too appreciate the stand taken by the President and the Chief Justice of India against death penalty, as the policy of ‘tit for tat’ or ‘bullet for bullet’ is counter productive and a total negation of human rights and rule of law. You know the Preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, too says, ‘Whereas it is essential, if a man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law.’
That we all know that death penalty is used by some States to silence political resistance or to eliminate their opponents. And for this purpose, laws such as TADA are used where fair trial is not at all possible. If justice is secured only by an act of killing, how legitimate is the law (now repealed) that sanctions that sort of justice. We believe that God alone can take away life because He alone gives it. Why then, we arrogate to ourselves to finish it off, even though firmly believing that Ultimate Justice lies with God.
And to supplement this spirit, Article 51A of the Indian Constitution urges compassion and humanism as fundamental duties. The Constitutional power under Article 72 of granting amnesty is an executive act and not a judicial one. The reason why the Executive is given such power, says Mr Taft, Chief Justice, in American case (Ex parte Grossman, 27 US 87: 69 Law Edition 527), “(It) affords relief from undue harshness or evident mistake in the operation or enforcement of the criminal law.”
Thus, you, sir, being Home Minister of India, should kindly correct, in the national interest, the blunder committed by the Judiciary in the enforcement of criminal law, (such as TADA) and recommend this case to the President of India for amnesty for Prof Bhullar.
We had earnest�ly hoped that President would uphold the dignity, independence and prerogative of his office and give a judicious and compassionate consideration to our representation, which was filed on behalf of the entire Sikh Panth, including Sikhs living abroad and that he would not allow his steps to falter in exercising compassionately and humanely the sacred and super power given to him by the Indian Constitution to grant amnesty to Prof Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar.
And that too when the entire Sikh community has been watching the Government of India's tactics of sending persons like Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh to the gallows and giving ministe�rial berths and offices to conspirators and murderers of thousands of Sikhs.
Do you know, Mr Patil that SSP Sumed Singh Saini and his associates allegedly picked up Prof Bhullar’s father Balwant Singh and his mother’s brother-in-law Manjit Singh and clandestinely liquidated them while three others picked up along with his father were subjected to brutal torture? Out of them, Joginder Singh had become insane, Mohinder Singh’s hips fractured (now cannot properly walk) and Mukhtiar Singh’ legs broken. Indian justice system made mockery of their agony. Thus, justice to them (including thousands of others) remained elusive since then, while their perpetrators such as Sumed Saini and KPS Gill are being magnified day in, day out by the State. That not only the State had awarded Gold Medals to the killers in uniform of Sikh activists and but also reprieved their sentences. Therefore, sir, we must realise that India owes justice to them, including Prof Bhullar.
Pascal has rightly stated, "Power without justice is soon questioned." Sikhs and other minorities have been subjected to repression and injustices of many kinds. Your government’s wiser and enlightened timely step of amnesty to Prof Bhullar may not only give them a healing touch but may even persuade the governments to change their policies of re�pression and keeping innocent people indefinitely in prison for a long time or killing mere suspects in faked encounters.
Yes, Justice M. B. Shah tried to deliver justice by acquitting Professor Bhullar, stating that the conspiracy theory falls flat as the "rest of the accused who are named in the confessional statement are not convicted or tried," but all in vain, ’cause majority judgement prevailed. Two other judged united against the presiding minority judge, Mr Justice Shah.
In view of these facts, we petitioned to the President, APJ Abdul Kalam, to take a politically and constitutionally correct decision of not only commuting the death sentence but also of freeing Prof Bhullar and earn the warm gratitude of the crores of the Sikhs. His Excellency has wisely referred back to the Central Cabinet Prof Bhullar’s case, along with some other cases, for reconsideration, expressing his desire against death penalty in such cases.
Now the ball is in your court, sir; hit it to keep up with the Sikhs, a brave and worldwide community with fervour because eighteen million Sikhs in India and abroad and millions of emi�nent persons in other civilised communities and countries firmly believe that Prof Bhullar is a victim of fractured judicial judgement of the Supreme Court of India due to political prejudices.
Moreover, the Indian leaders, including Mrs. Indira Gandhi, have time and again raised their voice against death sentence given to similar political offenders in other countries and have done their utmost to save them from the gallows. Many examples can be given from the time of appeal to Fascist leader Franco of Spain not to execute the Basque nationalists and Marxists to the example of Mrs. Indira Gandhi's appeal to save Prime Minister Bhutto of Pakistan from the gallows. The indian leaders did not have time and did not raise their voices.
In our own country, CPI (ML) guerrilla leader Naghbushan Patnaik who refused to defend him or appeal for mercy was saved from the gallows because his act of murder was a political offence. It is a well-known fact in history that even the Russian Czar saved the eminent novelist Dostoevsky by issuing a reprieve a few minutes before he was to go to the gallows. We hope you will take a similar humane and compassionate view of the issue in question and act on the principles that our government has been preaching to other nations and Countries, including Pakistan as in the recent case of Sarbjit Singh alias Manjit Singh.
It is in view of these facts we respectfully appeal to you to take a politically correct decision, have compassionate attitude towards Prof Bhullar and not only to commute his death sentence but also set him free forthwith.
Thanking you,
Truly yours D S Gill Advocate Punjab Rights Forum [3]
[edit] Worldwide Day of Protest - January 17, 2006
On January 17, 2006 constituent members of the Punjab Rights Forum held protest rallies throughout various district headquarters in Punjab demanding the abolition of death penalty and release of Prof Davinderpal Singh Bhullar and all other Sikh political activists. Prominent among the various organizations which took part in these rallies under the Punjab Rights Forum were the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), Shiromani Akali Dal (Longowal), Shiromani Akali Dal (1923), Dal Khalsa, Shiromani Khalsa Dal, Sikh Students Federation, Sikh Nari Manch, Shiromani Khalsa Panchayat, International Human Rights Organisation and the Damdami Taksal.
The rallies were held in co-ordination with Candle-Lit vigils which had taken place on the same day across cities throughout Europe and North America that had been organized largely by the Sikh Federation (UK) in addition to the Canadian Organization of Sikh Students, Khalsa Human Rights, World Sikh Organisation and International Sikh Youth Federation.
The purpose of the Candle-Lit vigils was to demonstrate against the use of the death penalty in India and call for the release of Prof Davinderpal Singh Bhullar and all other SIkh political activists currently detained there.
[edit] External links
other parts of india are unknown.
