Ok. Murdered, and not gang rape, “just rape” (see the full report here Pg 7, 15, 19 of Part I, among other things, if you have the stomach for gruesome details).

The article is worth quoting in full. FWIW, Praveen Swami is one the best journalists ‘The Hindu’ (or any newspaper in India) has. His reports are authoritative and well researched.

Media misrepresented key facts on Shopian rape-murder

Praveen Swami

Journalists share responsibility for fanning south Kashmir violence, judge says

For the most part, Justice Jan found, the media misrepresented forensic evidence

NEW DELHI: Ever since May, when the bodies of two women washed up near Shopian, journalists have chronicled the multiple failures of administration and policing that allowed the tragic deaths to spark off some of the worst street violence ever seen in Jammu and Kashmir.

Following the release of the findings of the Justice Muzaffar Jan Commission of Enquiry on Friday, the Jammu and Kashmir government has announced that it intends to prosecute four police officials for some of those failures.

But both journalists and the Jammu and Kashmir government have maintained a stoic silence on one institution blamed by Justice Jan for spreading falsehood and inciting violence: the media itself. Stories fabricated?

Justice Jan’s report highlights disturbing evidence that some journalists may have fabricated elements of their stories.

Early in June, several Srinagar-based journalists reported that one victim’s husband had received a call from her at 7 p.m. on May 29. During the call, the accounts said, the victim reported that she was being chased by CRPF personnel.

In their testimony to the Jan Commission, though, the victim’s husband and her brother made it clear that she had never owned a mobile phone, a fact first reported in this newspaper. Jammu and Kashmir police investigators attached to the Commission studied 32,686 cellphone calls made in Shopian on May 29, and were able to establish that none was made to or from any phone that may have been in the victim’s possession.

Efforts were also made by sections of the media to suggest that the local police may have sought to hush up the case on the orders of their superior. Journalists in particular turned on Constable Mohammad Yaseen, who was reported to have made several phone calls to superiors even as a search for the victims’ bodies was underway — evidence, it was argued, of the unusual interest of his bosses in the case.

In fact, the Commission found, Mr. Yaseen had made only four calls during the whole day and none between 10 p.m. on June 29, when the search for the victims began, until 6 a.m. on June 30, when the bodies were found.

Local resident Jamal-ud-Din Wani, claimed by the media to be an eyewitness to the killings, was alleged to have been abducted after the bodies were found. The Jan Commission found him living in a tent at the hamlet of Dehgam, close to Shopian, where he works as a watchman at a local seminary.

For the most part, Justice Jan found, the media misrepresented forensic evidence. Media accounts insisted that both women appeared to have been badly beaten and gang raped. However, the Jan Commission states, pathologists found no evidence to support the proposition of gang rape. Moreover, only one victim’s body was found to bear visible external injuries. Claims that one victim was pregnant at the time of her death, Justice Jan states, were also wrong.

Perhaps in order to buttress claims that the two women had been raped before they were killed, some journalists asserted that their clothes were torn. However, witnesses interviewed by the Jan Commission said that the women’s Feran and shalwar were intact.

Most disturbing, though, is Justice Jan’s finding that the media incited hatred by broadcasting communal propaganda.

Based on the accounts of individuals claiming to be eyewitnesses, newspapers said that one victim’s forehead had been smeared with sindoor — an allegation that suggested that the rapists were Hindus, and the rape itself macabre religion-driven hate crime. However, the Commission noted, the red marks on her forehead were in fact blood from a head wound. “The flow of blood,” the report states, “was shamefully distorted and projected as a mark of sindoor.”

Noting that this kind of reporting has fuelled violence in Jammu and Kashmir, Justice Jan has suggested that “firm guidelines are made to ensure that, before publication of any news, the authenticity of the news be verified.”

maybe not. The women may not have been raped after all. http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/12/stories/2009071255830800.htm

I do think the mass cremation issue is shocking enough by itself that it is worth sustained attention by Indian citizens, without reference to ‘balance’ (nothing the other side did was ever on this scale)

I agree your concern abt shocking human right violations by govt. On purely academic argumentative grounds I don’t agree with this line of reasoning abt balance and scales of comparison. Sikh terrorism, Murder of Indira Gandhi e= Innocents killed in Iraq/Afghanistan in retribution of 9/11 = Hindus burnt in the train in Gujarat = Muslims murdered in Godhra riots = Violations of human rights by Punjab Police.

While I agree with this, after the insurgency is put down and the threat is removed you need some way of accounting for the moral costs paid. Truth & reconciliation committees are good for this as they don’t mete out punishment but offer closure nonetheless.

It is often necessary when times are ugly that a political leader will need to get his hands dirty. But while we accept that our leaders may have to accept that they will take on this burden of sin, we don’t want them to be happy about it and we certainly don’t want them to do it too often.

The preceding context to the line Amardeep quoted sums up this dismal fact nicely. Alas, such sinful practices are the duties of the Kshatriya order! Ourselves have taken our births in that wretched order! Whether those practices be sinful or virtuous, any other than the profession of arms would be censurable for us. A Sudra serveth; a Vaisya liveth by trade; the Brahmana have choosen the wooden bowl (for begging), while we are to live by slaughter! A Kshatriya, slayeth a Kshatriya; fishes live on fish; a dog preyeth upon a dog! Behold, O thou of the Dasarha race, how each of these followeth his peculiar virtue.

This is going around in circles. My understanding of the issue is simple, a judicious use of encounters, assassinations and ‘disappearances’ is a practical, though morally unsatisfying solution to putting down an insurgency. Its a vital step in ensuring that saner minds can prevail and a political solution can be found. Other than this, there is no known way to defeat an insurgency.

If you oppose these means, you must at least try to come up with a theoretical framework or practical solution that have been shown to work. If you want these to stop, that is the best you can do. You wont get far railing against the govt. of India or the Indian security forces.

How do you know that it is or isn’t judicious? And that these targets of rape/murder/disappearance/mutilation are actually involved in insurgency?

Lets say, these two were insurgents and were arrested and produced before a court of law and the judge sentenced them to a life term. Would we know then that they were actually involved in the insurgency? We wont, in principle, we would know that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in practice they may have been framed or just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Even in the ideal case, they may well be innocent, but unable to prove it to a reasonable degree.

In an insurgency, the regular ways of delivering justice don’t work any more. There is no police, no lawyers, no witnesses and no judges. If you loose, you can be sure that there will be violence on a scale thats beyond comprehension. In such a case, what would you do?

The govt. of India has taken a position (though they wont say it out loud) that they will kill these insurgents once they are sure that they are involved. This policy has a lot of support from the people in India, who really just want peace more than anything else. They want a good legal system as well, but they want peace now. Its not really just a bunch of soldiers with guns running amok.

As for judicious or indiscriminate, govt. of India has fought insurgencies for the past 60 years. They know indiscriminate doesnt work. Past policies and incidents also point out that GoI is fairly judicious in its application of force. More the rapier than the sledgehammer.

Interesting post, but a few points of difference. I feel you err in your terminology. You write:

Earlier I have written posts criticizing Sikh militancy in various forms (and I have taken considerable heat from more conservative Sikhs for my views), but I did not think it was appropriate here.

It would not be ‘conservative’ Sikhs criticizing you (or ‘liberal’ Sikhs supporting you), but rather ‘nationalist’ Sikhs.

And with regards to a Truth Commission, it would be a great idea. In fact, perhaps unknown to you, Ram Narayan Kumar was instrumental in creating such a civil commission and you can see the Indian Government’s reaction to it. You can read more here.

In his election manifesto, Chief Minister of Punjab Prakash Singh Badal promised to create a People’s Commission to examine complaints of human rights violations.[134] After he failed to deliver on his promise, in 1997 the CCDP organized a private panel of three retired justices to hear people’s petitions about abuses committed by the police. Justice D. S. Tewatia, a former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, chaired the panel, accompanied by Justice H. Suresh, a retired judge of the Maharashtra High Court, and Justice Jaspal Singh, a retired judge of the Delhi High Court. According to Article 1(1) of its Rules, the Commission aimed to investigate complaints of summary executions, mass illegal cremations, illegal abductions, custodial torture, and enforced disappearances in light of national and international law. Ultimately, it hoped to suggest avenues of redress for victims. Amidst great popular support, the Commission held its first sitting from August 8 to 10, 1998 in Chandigarh. The first and only sitting of the Commission drew a standing crowd. People who, despite influence, knowledge, emotional strength, and a desire for justice had not approached the judicial system, now eagerly submitted petitions for examination by the panel. In the face of this popular support, advocate Sudershan Goel filed a petition in the High Court on September 3, 1998, accusing the Commission of creating havoc, diminishing police morale, inciting enmity, setting up a parallel judicial system, and serving as a front for foreign interests. To prove the Commission’s support for foreign interests, Goel attached letters from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, from Amnesty International, and from a member of Britain’s Parliament, among others, asking for the release of detained human rights activists Jaspal Singh Dhillon and Kulbir Kaur Dhami.[135] Goel also named the Union of India, the State of Punjab, and the Daily Tribune as respondents, for failing to prevent the Commission from holding its hearings and “causing a feeling of loss of governance in the minds of the people.�[136] The State of Punjab replied that the Commission had not yet created a law and order problem. Thus, despite any desire the State may have had to stop the Commission, it could not proactively prevent the Commission from carrying out its activities. The High Court, however, banned the People’s Commission for creating a parallel judicial system. The Court dissected the language used by the Commission, resting on dictionary definitions to support its decision. “Commission� implied a legal body, and “summons� implied a legal action; thus, the privately organized People’s Commission was attempting to usurp the powers of the judiciary.[137] The Court glossed over the Commission’s Rules where the Commission affirmed that no group had to recognize the Commission and all participation was voluntary. The Court took issue with the Commission’s plan to reevaluate judgments passed by the High Court. Article 5(2) of the Commission’s Rules states: If it “can be established that the court proceedings were not impartial or independent, and were designed to shield the accused from criminal responsibility or the case was not diligently prosecuted,� the Commission reserved the option to reevaluate the judicial decision. Although Supreme Court opinions had affirmed the right of Indian citizens to criticize and analyze judicial decisions, the High Court balked at this transparency. Goel’s petition and the High Court’s decision mirrored many of the problems petitioners faced with habeas corpus petitions. Neglecting to take note of the limitations imposed by the inefficiency, corruption, and inefficacy of the lower courts in handling police abuses, Justice Dutt of the High Court wrote in his opinion for the People’s Commission case: “The complaints of heinous nature like murder, abduction, rape etc. can be taken cognizance of in the Criminal Courts in India without any limitation standing in the way.�[138] He did not, however, subject Goel to the same recommendation. Instead, Justice Dutt ruled in favor of Goel’s petition before any law and order issue had occurred.

Also, would you consider it a crime if the rape and murder of two women was committed by these orgs? If so, why is it not a crime when state actors do the same thing?

Alright, the dots from “screwing up investigation” to “coverup” are connected here.

According to sources, Justice (retd) Muzzafar Jan, in his report, alleged that Superintendent of Police Javed Iqbal, Deputy SP and Station House Office had “tried to destroy evidence” in the case. The commission, silent on the cause of death though, said “…the way police tried to destroy evidence, finger of suspicion falls on them.”

In Kashmir, anything can happen, it wont be a surprise at all if some HM or LeT mujaheddin are responsible for the crime.

So, despite an investigative commission’s report, your inclination is to believe that the separatists are the culprits. I am curious – under what circumstances would you consider that the state can do wrong?