You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Human Rights' category.
Beena Sarwar
Let us live our lives
GIVEN the multiple issues facing Pakistanis, the last thing we need is for a legislator to defend a heinous crime in the name of tradition. We don’t need the heinous crime either, in this case the murder of women who were apparently defying their families by trying to marry of their own choice.
The resistance of conservative families to expressions of autonomy by their daughters is an ongoing problem in patriarchal, conservative societies like ours. Some parents accept their children’s wishes. Others submit to the inevitable, cutting off inheritance or refusing to meet them.
In Pakistan, some misuse the legal system to gain submission, filing cases of zina (adultery) against daughters who elope, preferring to see them tried for a crime punishable by death rather than married to someone unsuitable. Others resort to physical violence in an effort to gain submission.
In extreme cases, some family member uses weapon to end the defiance once and for all — termed a ‘crime of passion’ in much of the world. Here, it is called ‘honour killing.’
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan recorded over 600 cases of ‘honour killings’ or karo kari last year — just the reported incidents, compiled from reports appearing daily in the media. Over ninety such murders were reported in the first three months of this year alone. The actual number may be higher, as not all cases are reported.
Is the violence actually rising or is it just that the media is reporting such cases with greater frequency? The media boom is certainly instrumental in bringing more such stories to light. However, such cases may also be on the rise because of emerging conflicts within a rapidly modernising conservative, patriarchal society where women are seen as family property and the repositories of honour.
Greater exposure to media and more education leads to a heightened awareness of human rights issues. Those who defy the old order have greater support — legal, moral, and financial — from various non-government and even some government organisations.
Pitted against these developments are conservative elements fearful of their culture and traditions changing before their eyes, who then seek to codify tradition, until now fairly amorphous. This may be the context of the inexcusable justification that Senator Israrullah Zehri of the BNP presented in defence of the brutal murders reported in his home province Balochistan: five women reportedly beaten, shot and then buried alive for defying their families.
This is hardly the first time that culture and tradition, or even religion, were used to justify violence and suppression of women. The prosecuting lawyer in the Samia Waheed “love marriage case” argued that in the sect of Islam to which Samia belonged, a woman must seek the wali or guardian’s approval to marry “even if she is sixty years old.” Although she won the case, fearful for her life, she fled abroad along with the man she had eloped with.
In another infamous case, Saima Sarwar wasn’t so lucky. The young woman from Peshawar had left her abusive, drug-dependent husband. Her parents accepted that but drew the line at her intention to divorce him and re-marry. She took refuge at a women’s shelter in Lahore.
In April 1999, her mother asked to meet Saima at AGHS, the office of her attorney Hina Jillani, arriving with a manservant. As Saima entered the room, he pulled out a pistol and shot her dead. Her mother escaped in a rickshaw but a plainclothes policeman at AGHS shot the murderer dead as he attempted to flee.
What many found astounding was that Saima’s parents were not some illiterate people from a remote tribal area, but educated, influential, city dwellers. The father was a businessman who had headed the Peshawar Chamber of Commerce and Industry while the mother was a gynaecologist.
Then too, there was uproar in the Senate, when former law minister Iqbal Haider of the opposition Pakistan People’s Party initiated a resolution against the murder on August 2, 1999. Like Israrullah Zehri of the Balochistan National Party, which has secular, nationalist credentials, Ajmal Khattak, the supposedly progressive leader of the Awami National Party, also a secular, nationalist party, had shouted Mr. Haider down.
He held that Saima Sarwar had disgraced her family who had acted according to Pakhtoon tradition. Some senators from Fata physically attacked Mr. Haider. Only four Senators stood in support of the resolution.Twenty-four Senators including the PML-Q’s presidential candiate Mushahid Hussain Syed (then with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s PML) and other luminaries like the retired judge Javed Iqbal and former foreign secretary Akram Zaki stood to oppose it.
Flash forward to another democratic era barely a decade later. Another horrific murder, another voice raised in the Senate (this time by a woman), and another Senator’s justification in the name of tradition.
Whether the women were buried alive or whether they were already dead when buried is beside the point. The tragedy is not so much how they suffered. First of all, no one has the right to take another life. Second, the women’s crime to want to marry of their own choice was no crime under any law or religion.
Third, even if murdering women who disgrace their families is accepted in some areas, not every aggrieved family resorts to such action. And fourth but not least, slavery too was once a widely accepted custom. So was the burying alive of baby girls. Neither practice is condoned now, in any way, anywhere in the world.
Interestingly, both these Senate debates for and against the murder of women for honour took place after particularly gruesome crimes committed under a democratic dispensation. This is certainly not because there was less gender violence when the military was at the helm of affairs.
Violence against women has risen over the last decade. It was at its peak under Gen Ziaul Haq and his discriminatory religious laws that strengthened reactionary forces and reinforced negative stereotypes about women. But democracy, with elected representatives answerable to their constituencies, opens up spaces to discuss and debate such issues rather than sweeping them under the carpet.
Some would prefer not to discuss such issues because this brings a bad name to the country. They need to ask themselves who is responsible: those who perpetuate the violence, or those who are its victims? What would make us a better, stronger nation: dealing with the issue, or burying it in the sand?
Beena Sarwar, a freelance journalist and film-maker, writes from Karachi.
Source: The Daily Star, Bangladesh, September 8, 2008
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=53715
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-235-2008
September 5, 2008
The Asian Human Rights Commission has received information that the two children of Dr. Afia Sidiqui, who is currently in custody in the United States on charges of assault and attempting to murder members of the American forces during her custody in Afghanistan, have been removed by Afghan and foreign forces from Bagram prison. The current whereabouts of the two children is unknown.
In a letter sent to the Attorney of Dr. Afia Sidiqui, on August 22, 2008, from the US Department of Justice, the attorney was informed about the identification of Mohammad, one of the children of Dr. Afia who has been missing since March 2003, according to Dr. Fauzia Sidiqui, Dr. Afia’s sister. She states that the letter informed that Mohammad is now in the custody of the Afghan National Police since his purported arrest in Afghanistan on July 17, 2008.
According to the details received later, Dr. Afia’s children have been missing since August 31, 2008, after soldiers from the Afghan Army and Rangers from one of the foreign forces removed Master Mohammad, age 11, the eldest son, from the Bagram prison, where he was kept in illegal detention according to the laws of that country. Details with regard to the younger child are even scantier.
In between the dates of August 31 and September 3, a person Dr. Afia’s sister, Dr. Fauzia Siddiqui was in contact with, suddenly disappeared and his cell phone no longer responds. He has not contacted Dr, Fauzia since September 1. She had been in contact with this person for some time and through him was able to talk to Master Ahmed on at least two occasions. Master Ahmed told her that he was just able to recognize Dr. Fauzia from photographs of her press conferences, which he was shown by the man as Ahmed had accompanied her to a medical conference just one month prior to his disappearance.
After these contacts, Dr. Fauzia Siddiqui applied for a visa to Afghanistan on August 24, to meet her nephew. Again on August 25, she sent faxes to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan and the Consul General of Afghanistan in Karachi. On August 26, she talked personally to one of the high officers of the foreign office who confirmed that she would get a visa. The Afghan Consul also confirmed this. Furthermore, on August 28, Dr, Fauzia received a phone call from the office of Mr. Farooq Naik, the Minister for Law, who told her that she would get full support from the government to locate Dr. Afia’s children. That same day, a Mr. Durrani, from the Pakistani embassy in Kabul phoned Dr. Fauzia and confirmed that both the children, Master Ahmed and Marium, age 9, were in Afghanistan and they would both be provided full security and assistance in returning to Pakistan.
Then, on September 2, despite all the indications of promises of support from the Pakistan government, she was informed that she could not get a visa for Afghanistan. On September 3 Dr. Fauzia received a telephone call from the US State department that as the “family is disinterested in the children they may be transferred to the USA”. Despite this statement by the US State Department there is still no information on the whereabouts of the children after they were removed from Bagram prison.
Meanwhile, it has also been reported by the media in New York that Dr. Afia Siddiqui was denied permission to attend court proceedings on Thursday, September 4, 2008 as she had refused to submit to a body search. However, there is confusion as to this statement as Dr. Afia’s family in the United States reported that she had specifically asked for her brother to be present in court as she wanted to speak with him about some important issues, particularly her children. This message was delivered to her brother, Mr. Mohammad Ali Siddiqui. The family sources claimed that she told the lawyer to emphasize that her brother should cancel all his engagements so as to be sure to attend the court.
The government of Pakistan and the United States owe an obligation to the family of Dr. Afia to inform them of the whereabouts of the two children, Master Ahmed and Marium. It would be a blatant violation of the rights of the child to keep them in secret places without access to their natural guardians. Since Dr. Afia is in the custody of the United States the natural guardians of her children would be her family. It is a matter of the absolute rights of children that whatever be the charges against the parents that they have the right of protection. Therefore the relevant UN agencies and all the authorities of the government of Pakistan and the United States should effectively intervene to return these two children to their natural guardians.
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
UNB, Benapole
A Bangladeshi cattle trader was shot dead by Indian Border Security Force (BSF) on Agrabhulat frontier in Benapole early today.
The deceased was identified as Amir Mollah, 40, son of Ali Mollah of Agrabhulat village.
BDR sources said when a group of 7/8 cattle traders were retuning to their village from the border area, BSF troops of Jhaudanga camp fired on them, killing Amir Mollah on the spot.
The border guards of India took away the body into their territory.
Tension has been prevailing along the border.
Source: The Daily Star, Bangladesh, August 29, 2008.
NEW DELHI: A 13-year-old girl from Lucknow has alleged she was forced into sex trade by her sister who runs a brothel in her flat in Rohini’s Sector 4. The girl was helped by an auto driver and an FIR has been filed with the help of National Commission for Women.The girl, Rashmi, was brought to
Delhi by her brother-in-law (Ramesh), 15 days back on the pretext of helping her older sister (Lata), who is pregnant. Rashmi came willingly and was made to do household chores like cleaning, sweeping and cooking. Very soon, however, her sister allegedly forced her into sex trade.Speaking to
Times City, Rashmi said: ” My sister asked me to practice with my brother-in-law before I could entertain customers. They both forced me into it. Men and girls came every week to the house. This is their only source of income. One of the girls even got me a medicine to lessen the pain I felt.”Unable to continue, Rashmi decided to run away from the flat on Wednesday morning on the pretext of getting milk for the house, while her sister and brother-in-law were still asleep.
With only a small bag of clothes and 50-odd rupees on her, Rashmi set out for
Lucknow , but was lost in the big city. Fortunately for her, an auto driver, Radhe, helped her out when he saw her, surrounded vulnerably, by other auto drivers at Jain Nagar bus stand near Rohini Metro Station.” She was pleading to be taken to New Delhi Railway Station, but was being ridiculed by the drivers,” said Radhe. ” She reminded me of my own nine-year-old daughter . I knew she was not safe alone. So I decided to drop her to her house. But when she narrated her story, I realised it was better if I took her to my home in Rajiv Nagar in Rohini,” he added.
Radhe then consulted one Sapna Chowdhury, a teacher in a primary school in Rajiv Nagar, who also is a social worker. She in turn filed a complaint with the National Commission for Women (NCW).
The girl was brought to the commission on Thursday, and in the presence of NCW member Manju S Hembrom, an FIR was lodged. The girl was later taken for a medical examination. ” We have asked the police to investigate on the sex racket that the girl has alleged is taking place in the flat of Rohini sector 4. We will ensure the girl goes back to
Lucknow, safe and,” said Manju S Hembrom.(Names of victim and accused have been changed)
Source: The Times of
India, 29 Aug 2008, 0822 hrs IST, Deeksha Chopra,TNN
PHIRINGIA (KANDHMAL): Gayadhar Digal paid the price for taking matters of religion in a communally troubled part of the state too lightly. He was born a Hindu and died a Hindu, but in between he proclaimed his liking for Christianity. This cost him his life at his native Kasinipadar village in Phiringia block of Kandhmal district.On Tuesday afternoon, Sangh Parivar men, enraged over the killings of senior VHP leader Swami Laxmananda Saraswati and his disciples, attacked his house. Gayadhar, with his wife and son, ran for safety only to be hacked one km away in the field. Gayadhar succumbed. Raimati and Baisnab, a school student, are battling for lives in hospital. Attackers set ablaze many of the 350 houses in the village, with the Digals suffering the most: losing their breadwinner.
Why was the family targeted? The reasons offered by their relatives and villagers would shock even the stoic. “My uncle was a Hindu. I don’t know why they attacked him and his family. Possibly, it was due to confusion over his religious identity,” said niece Malati. Saroj Kumar Digal tried to clear the air. “All the Christians had left the village and moved into the jungle, fearing violence. The attackers perhaps mistook Gayadhar to be a Christian and vented their ire on him.”
Why him? And a villager whispered: “He practiced Christianity for sometime, but was back to the Hindu-fold later. Maybe those in the mob who were from nearby areas, didn’t know about his reentering Hinduism.”
“The situation in Kandhmal is such that Christians have started claiming to be Hindus to escape communalists’ rage. As such, it’s difficult to ascertain religious affiliation of people. Many people, even after embracing Christianity, choose to remain Hindus in official records for SC/ST benefits,” said a police officer.
Source: The Times of Inida, 29 Aug 2008, 0245 hrs IST, Sandeep Mishra,TNN
The stench of burning tyres, walls coloured black with soot, glass splinters strewn across the streets, broken furniture and people hiding in the forests — Orissa is again caught up in communal rage.”We have been running to the forest now and then. We are terribly scared to remain inside the convent and be burnt alive, so we thought the forest would be a better option,” said Sister Ramya, who along with 11 nuns and school girls is now hiding in a Christian-run school in Phulbani district.
“It’s raining and we had to take shelter in the school. It is better to die together,” she said. Running for life since Saturday after the killing of VHP leader Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, Sister Ramya said they have been surviving on bananas. “We are too scared to even go to the convent and cook.”
Sister Ramya’s plight is shared by several others belonging to the Christian community, at the receiving end of the latest onslaught by saffron mob on the prowl to avenge the killing of their leader who had once said, “The sooner Christians return to the Hindu fold, the better it would be for the country.” Though communal flare-ups are quite common in southern Orissa where Hindu groups and Christians are posed on either sides of a war over conversions, people working in the churches — taking care of the poor and orphaned — are the worst-hit. Aware of the possibility of being attacked, they are now living in fear.
Father Paulraj, who tops the hitlist of VHP activists and has been repeatedly threatened, runs an orphanage in Phulbani district. They have 200 children under their care. In Baligura, mob destroyed the property of Mount Carmel Convent, which was running a dispensary, hostel and computer centre for tribals. The dispensary was the only source of first-aid for villagers.
Angry activists also attacked a hostel run by the
Church of North India which housed 40 poor children. The pastor who ran the hostel fled to a nearby forest with the children to avoid a mob and the group is still hiding there. Sister Ramya, who’s with Carmel Convent in Phulbani, said they are running an English-medium school and teaching in it. They also have a hostel for students of classes XI and XII. “Nobody had any complaints. We didn’t even have Catechism classes for the students. We’ve done no harm. I don’t know why we have to suffer like this. I feel there’s no one to help me now,” she said, her voice choking with emotion.A pastor whose church was attacked in
Bhubaneswar said, “A mob of about 70-80 people came with tyres, kerosene, petrol and axes. Many of them were drunk. They flung burning tyres into our prayer room and even injured the cops who tried to resist.”As various districts were convulsed by the faith divide, Sister Ramya said, “We long to be let out of this place and at least breath free,” adding that the allegations are all made up stories. “Christians here are not equipped to kill such a prominent leader,” she said.
Source: The Times of India, 27 Aug 2008, 0039 hrs IST, Joyce William John,TNN
August 28, 2008
ALRC-CWS-09-02-2008
Language(s): English only
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Ninth session
Written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status
INDIA: The Border Security Force — India’s killing machine
15-year-old Shilajit Mondal was neither an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant trying to cross the Indo-Bangladesh border at night or a cross-border smuggler. Shilajit was the son of Mr. Golok Mondal, a farmer, who lives near the Indo-Bangladesh border. Yet Shilajit was shot at close range by the Border Security Force (BSF) officer Mr. Islam on July 23, 2008. Islam is a BSF officer stationed at Ranjanagar Border Out Post Camp in Murshidabad district of West Bengal State in India.
Islam and his colleagues were reportedly chasing a group of cross-border smugglers when they spotted Shilajit sitting in front of his hut. Islam approached Shilajit and asked whether he had seen any persons running away from the direction the BSF officers came. The officer was speaking in Hindi, a language Shilajit did not understand. Shilajit could not reply. The officer shouted filth at Shilajit, pulled him up and started assaulting him. When Shilajit cried out loud due to pain and fear, local villagers rushed to the scene asking the officer to leave the boy alone. The officer pushed Shilajit to the ground, walked a few steps away, lifted his rifle and shot Shilajit dead.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), and its sister-organisation the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), have documented at least two dozen similar cases of murder committed by the BSF from Murshidabad district alone in the past two years.
In addition to the cases that are brought to the attention of the AHRC and ALRC through local organisations like MASUM, there is reasonable suspicion that there are many other cases that go unreported because of the fear the BSF have instilled in the area. If a complaint is made, the victim or the victim’s family members are usually threatened by the BSF to either withdraw the complaint or to remain silent.
Such was the experience in Mr. Dwijen Mondal’s case. Dwijen, the son of Mr. Hridoy Mondal, was allegedly murdered by the BSF on May 3, 2008. Dwijen was arrested for questioning by the BSF and taken to the BSF Out-Post No.3. There the officers assaulted and tortured Dwijen, who died the next day. Local villagers protested violently, however, the case was silenced by the BSF officers, who threatened the victim’s family into withdrawing their complaint.
The BSF is a notoriously violent paramilitary unit and is stationed in areas that the government of India considers to be sensitive and where the local police require additional help. It is accused of committing crimes including rape, torture and murder wherever they are posted in India, notably in North-Eastern states like Manipur and in West Bengal.
The BSF is stationed along the Indo-Bangladesh border in West Bengal to prevent cross-border smuggling, infiltration of insurgents, illegal migration and other illegal activities along the international border between India and Bangladesh. The BSF is also required to assist the local police in maintaining law and order.
In practice however, the BSF with the connivance of the representatives of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) and the local police is engaged in cross-border smuggling. The CPI-M is ruling the West Bengal state for the past three decades. The local police, particularly police officers the posted at border police stations like the Jalangi Police Station are notorious for aiding the BSF in cross border smuggling. Yet the West Bengal state government declared the Jalangi Police Station as one of the best police stations in the state in February 2008. This allegation of corruption is however not limited to officers stationed at Jalangi Police Station.
On February 15, 2008 Mr. Mohammad Aptarul Hossain was shot on his leg by a BSF constable Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh. When Hossain lodged a complaint at the Gaighata Police Station, the police accused Hossain that he is an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant and registered a false case against Hossain.
The records at the police station says that Hossain is charged under Sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, 307 (attempt to murder), 353 (assault of criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 at the behest of the BSF.
Hossain is an Indian, born on May 12, 1993 and his parents hold Indian identity cards issued by the Election Commission of India bearing numbers WB/14/097/279442 and WB/14/097/279426.
The AHRC, the ALRC and the AHRC’s local partner the MASUM have been bringing these cases to the notice of the West Bengal state administration as well as the government of India. However, thus far the state as well as the government of India have taken no action against the BSF officers in any case.
The courts in India are also taking an adverse stance against suspected Bangladeshi immigrants. Two recent judgements delivered by the Indian courts, first by the Assam High Court and the Delhi High Court speaks this language. Both courts in judgements delivered in July and August, 2008 have said that illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are a threat to India. This opinion expressed by the courts serves as a blessing in disguise for the BSF. For the BSF every person murdered or tortured is an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant. By declaring so, the BSF escapes all liabilities under the Indian law for these criminal acts.
The domestic law that regulates the operation of the BSF is the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and its associated Rules, 1969. These laws however do not provide adequate procedures for any remedy for a civilian who has a complaint against a BSF officer. On the contrary, the above laws provide impunity to the BSF officers.
Section 47 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 says: ‘ person subject to this Act who commits an offence of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against, or rape in relation to, a person not subject to this Act shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall not be tried by a Security Force Court unless he commits any of the said offence, – (a) while on active duty‘.
The rider attached to this Section “while on active duty” stands in way of the possibility of a case to be taken up against the BSF officer in a civilian court. In all cases involving the BSF, which amounts to more than two dozen cases each year since 2003, the ALRC’s experience shows that the BSF after a murder or torture of a civilian immediately approaching the local police and filing a false case against the victim. In most cases the BSF accuses the victim, whether the victim is dead or alive, that the victim when approached by the BSF officers in ‘active duty’ tried to either prevent the officers from carrying out their duty.
The engagement of the BSF and their power to arrest, detain and question civilians in non-war situations is governed by the Criminal Procedure Code of India, 1973 (Cr.PC). This law that regulates the operation of law enforcement officers, including paramilitary units like the BSF in a civilian settings, is practically useless to take actions against a BSF officer. For the BSF officer to avoid any actions against him for breaching the provisions of the Cr.PC, it is enough that the officer allege that he engaged the civilian when the civilian prevented the officer from discharging his duty.
The case of Mr. Bishnupada Roy, aged 32-years, who was murdered between 9 and 9:30 pm on December 10, 2007 is an example. According to the BSF officer Mr. Narayan Khatry who shot Roy with his special issue assault rifle, Roy tried to attack Narayan with a pocket knife. The local police refused to take any action against Narayan, but registered a case against Roy, accusing him of obstructing a BSF officer from discharging his duty.
The atrocities committed by the BSF in India has thus far been left unaccounted for. The officers enjoy complete impunity against any acts of crime these officers regularly commit against innocent civilians. As of now there are no practical means available in India by which the BSF officers could be brought to justice and punished for the crimes they commit against innocent villagers. The BSF Act and Rules and the provisions therein, circumvents the Cr.PC.
Moreover, the Security Forces Court to be constituted by the BSF in an action against a BSF officer is not an open court where the accused as well as the witnesses could expect equal and impartial proceedings. The Security Forces Court is a military court where the victim or the witnesses in a crime against a BSF officer has no role to play. The prosecution, defence and adjudication is all carried out by the BSF officers.
The operation of the BSF with such impunity also contradicts the Constitutional guarantees of an Indian, particularly Article 21 that guarantees the right to life. The impunity enjoyed by the BSF in India also violates Article 6 (1) of the ICCPR that India has ratified. To make matters worse India has been refusing the requests for invitation by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions since 2000. India has also not honoured the request for invitation by the UN Rapporteur on Torture.
As early as in 1997, the issue of impunity and the arbitrary use of force by the BSF has been noticed by the UN agencies. The Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations (CCPR/C/76/Add.6) dated April, 4, 1997 has expressed concern by stating “… however, that all measures adopted must be in conformity with the State party’s obligations under the Covenant “.
While this is the reality, India in its voluntary pledge to the Human Rights Council has reiterated that it is taking all possible measures to guarantee to the citizen not only the ‘covenant rights’ but also to ensure that a violation of any such rights have the possibility of appropriate domestic remedies.
Being a state that has ratified the ICCPR and a member of the Human Rights Council, India has not only the legal obligation to abide by the covenant obligations, but also a moral duty to ensure that such obligations are fulfilled at the domestic level.
Under these circumstances the ALRC request the Council to:
1. Urge India to ensure that the deployment, operation and daily engagement of the BSF in India meets India’s legal obligations under the ICCPR and to review the operational procedures of the BSF;
2. Encourage the India to ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and to come up with necessary national legislations to implement the Convention at the domestic level;
3. Strongly suggest to the government of India to immediately look into the complaints filed by human rights groups in specific instances of human rights violations committed by the BSF;
AND
4. Encourage the government of India to accept the request for invitations by the mandate holders of the UN Special procedure mechanism, particularly the UN Special Rapporteurs on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions and on Torture.
# # #
About ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at local and national levels throughout Asia.
By Rater Zonaki
UPI Asia Online [ http://www.upiasiaonline.com ]
HONG KONG, China, August 26, 2008
Hundreds of migrant workers from Bangladesh have been deported by force from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the last few weeks, following protests against wages lower than what their employers had initially agreed to pay.
Many of these workers were brutally tortured by police before deportation. They were allegedly rounded up on a random basis from their workplaces and compelled to leave the oil-rich countries without even collecting their belongings and savings or due salaries.
Most of the migrant workers returned home bruised and injured, and deeply frustrated over losing the employment for which they had invested their family assets. There are allegations that some workers were sent back immediately after arriving in those countries. They have been plunged into deep despair about their economic futures.
It is shameful that Bangladesh’s diplomatic missions abroad failed to protect the rights of their own people. Serious criticism has been leveled against the government and its missions in the two Middle East countries over this failure.
The unemployed poor are easily trapped by the brokers of private manpower exporting agents across the country. The brokers tempt people with fairy tales about the work and the benefits they will get. They imply that by paying a fee and registering with their company, a worker can get rich in a few months.
In a country where more than 20 million educated people are unemployed, the uneducated worry about survival. The assurances of the brokers offer a ray of hope that a poor worker can find a brighter future. But first, they must pay a fee.
The agonizing hardships of their lives influence frustrated people to gamble with their fates and the last assets their families possess. They start collecting money according to the requirements of the brokers.
If a family has a piece of land, it is promptly sold, often to a moneyed person waiting for the opportunity to get the land cheaply. An unmarried man thinks about getting married to a woman who can pay a dowry equivalent to what he needs to get employment abroad.
Some people insist that their in-laws should pay the required fee, and use physical and psychological assaults on their wives to force them to pay. Some married people attempt to marry again to “earn” a dowry from the second wife’s relatives. Some sell their wives’ ornaments, whether or not the women agree. Some go to the microcredit companies to borrow the whole amount or a certain portion of it at a huge spiraling interest rate.
The manpower exporting agencies make passports for the workers by paying bribes to the police and the relevant bureaucrats; then they keep the passports in their possession, although this is unlawful. The broker informs the client that his passport is ready and sometimes shows the passport to ensure his credibility, as getting a passport has been made a difficult job due to corruption and harassment by law-enforcers.
The client pays more money to the agent following repeated insistence. At some point the client becomes desperate at the long process, fearing deception, and may try to get his money refunded.
In the end, some people manage to get employment and some do not. It helps if migrant relatives abroad play an active role in helping to find jobs. The poor work hard to earn bread and butter for their families as well as for the nation, in most cases on their own.
The government of Bangladesh knows that there are thousands of so-called agents of manpower exporting companies. The media regularly covers such stories. Some of these companies belong to members of Parliament from big political parties. They send 500 people abroad and cheat a few thousand more innocent illiterate job-seekers; and they build high-rise towers in the cities and drive luxurious vehicles of various brands.
The government of Bangladesh, in declaring its national budget every year, boasts of earning huge amounts in remittances from expatriate Bangladeshis, as if this were its own achievement. In July the country reported that more than US$8 billion was remitted to Bangladesh from migrant workers in the last fiscal year.
While migrant workers have been contributing so much to the nation, the Bureau of Manpower, under the Ministry of Labor and Manpower, and the Ministry of Expatriate Welfare – which are supposed to have well-designed plans to promote employment abroad – have been completely irresponsible, initiating no realistic programs to prevent the abuse of workers. Neither the law-enforcement agencies, Ministry of Home Affairs or the Finance Ministry have done anything meaningful to address the situation.
The diplomats abroad refer to migrant workers as “sons of beggars” and treat them inhumanly, whereas they are supposed to ensure the protection of their own nationals through bilateral negotiations at the state level. After all, their own salaries and benefits are paid by those hardworking poor people.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has no adequate policy to protect the rights of migrant workers around the world. There is no credible coordination among the departments responsible for assisting job-hunters at home and migrant workers abroad. No action is taken against the corrupt public officials and cheating manpower exporters.
The government policymakers must rethink their perverted policy of slumbering and remaining silent when the best contributors to the nation’s economy are in need. The authorities must have a pro-people policy to correct the system and protect the rights of their compatriot workers around the world.
–
(Rater Zonaki is the pseudonym of a human rights defender based in Hong Kong working at the Asian Human Rights Commission. He is a Bangladeshi national with a degree in literature from a university in Dhaka. He began his career as a journalist in 1990 and engaged in human rights activism at the grassroots level in his country for more than a decade. He also worked as an editor for publications on human rights and socio-cultural issues and contributed to other similar publications.)
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Human_Rights/2008/08/26/bangladeshi_migrant_workers_mistreated/2593/
