[The reply read: “In the instant matter, there appears to be no violations of Human Rights as well as facts of the case do not attract the allegations of corruption. Moreover your application does not make any reference to such allegations. Hence this department is not liable to provide any information in this regard to you under RTI Act-2005 (sic)." ... However, the CRPF’s stand on human rights violations is the polar opposite of Information and Broadcasting Minister Venkaiah Naidu’s, who claimed the attack was a violation of the jawans' human rights.
(Killings, by themselves, in an armed combat - maybe between the state forces and armed non-state actors, do not constitute human rights violations. However, killings, and even harassments, of non-combatants, the torture and/or killing of captives, disfigurement of the corpses of enemy forces under one's custody are, no doubt, clear examples of violation of human rights. No matter who did it. In the subject case, the denial of violation of human rights came, obviously, in order to justify denial of access to information. - Sukla) http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-sukma-attack-crpf-denies-any-human-rights-violation-2478872 Sukma attack: CRPF denies any human rights violation CRPF personnel injured in the Sukma attack DNA CORRESPONDENT | Wed, 21 Jun 2017-06:35am , New Delhi , DNA This statement was made in response to an RTI application filed by activist Venkatesh Nayak The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) claims that the death of 25 of its personnel in the attack in Chattisgarh's Sukma in April was not a violation of their human rights. This statement was made in response to an RTI application filed by activist Venkatesh Nayak. Nayak, a programme coordinator with Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), had filed an RTI plea weeks after Indian paramilitary forces were ambushed by Communist Party of India (Maoist) cadre in Sukma on April 24. Nayak had sought information about the inquiry report stating that it “pertains to allegations of violation of the right to life of the CRPF personnel who were killed in the attack”. Nayak said that his query was thus outside the ambit of the exemption that the CRPF took refuge behind under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. This section exempts 26 intelligence and security organisations from ordinary obligations of transparency applicable to other public authorities. ***The reply read: “In the instant matter, there appears to be no violations of Human Rights as well as facts of the case do not attract the allegations of corruption. Moreover your application does not make any reference to such allegations. Hence this department is not liable to provide any information in this regard to you under RTI Act-2005 (sic)."*** [Emphasis added.] Nayak’s request for a copy of the inquiry report filed in the aftermath of the attack was also rejected. “Moreover it is intimated that the inquiry report contains various security and tactics related issues and cannot be shared under the RTI Act on ground that it may adversely affect our strategic response (sic),” the reply said. ***However, the CRPF’s stand on human rights violations is the polar opposite of Information and Broadcasting Minister Venkaiah Naidu’s, who claimed the attack was a violation of the jawans' human rights.*** [Emphasis added.] “Are human rights only meant for those who choose violence in furtherance of their outdated ideologies and not for security personnel and common people?” Naidu had said. “Just like common people, our forces also have human rights,” Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju had said echoing Naidu’s sentiment. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
