STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

260 | Structures of Violence
- A letter was addressed by “Zoona Begum”,
mother of Ishfaq Ahmad Bhat to the Minister of
State, Jammu and Kashmir Home Department,
which stated that the surrender had taken place
before the army and that the victim remained
attached with the 6 Rashtriya Ries [RR] at
Vilgam, Kupwara District.
- The certicate issued on 11 July 2004 only
conrms that “Bashir Ahmed Lone” was
associated with the IB for ve days. Further, other
details in the certicate indicate that the person
was not under any duress or detention.
B. Written submissions of 10 September 2011
- There are contradictions between the 2006
and 2007 petitions, particularly as in 2006 the
families of the victims had claimed that the
surrender had taken place before Brigadier
Kataria.
- The certicate issued on 11 July 2004
conrms that there was no surerender and the
services of the person mentioned in the certicate
were merely being made use of for that duration.
- The testimony of the seven witnesses in
favour of the families of the victims do not prove
that the alleged surrender ever took place.
Further, “the petitioners are admittedly trained
militants” and their disappearance cannot be
attributed to the IB.
Two specic comments may be made before
considering the preliminary report of the judicial
enquiry:
that the surrender of the victims took place in
December 2004 or around that period. Finally, the
enquiry notes that further evidence is to be heard
before a nal nding may be made. Crucially, the
evidence of Abdul Rashid Khan [in whose house the
victims were seen] was required, along with the
records of surrender of the victims.
The nal enquiry report was concluded on 28 June
2013 and based on the evidence before it the enquiry
held that victims 1-3 were with Manchand Dogra and
were disappeared by him. “The State and Union of
India” were held responsible for his actions.
Therefore, untilmately, there was an indictment –
certainly on Mamchand Dogra.
Information on the petition numbers was sought
through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information
Act, 2009 [RTI] on 2 July 2012. Information was
provided.
Despite the passage of eight years no information
exists on whether any investigations or prosecutions
were conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Police in
this case. It needs to be ascertained whether a FIR
was even led in this case.
The Ministry of Defence seems to have cared very
little about the High Court proceedings or in instituting
a process for delivering justice.
The available documents do not suggest that even a
Court-Martial was conducted in this case by the army.
- The letter from the mother of Ishfaq Ahmad
Bhat does raise some doubt on the version of
events as put forward by the families of the
victims. This is compounded by a clear
contradiction between the 2006 and 2007
petitions on who the victims surrendered before.
But, it could be justiably argued that clear,
consistent specicity may be too much to expect
from the families of the victims when dealing with
the circumstances as seen in the instant case – a
surrender and then meetings over a period of
time, the victims perhaps working with not just two
agencies but many more. The onus is on the
Jammu and Kashmir Police to carry out thorough
and fair investigations.
- The explanation provided by the Union of
India and Inspector Dogra to the 11 July 2004
certicate does not appear convincing. If the
certicate is accepted, it does lend credence to
the version of events put forward by the family of
the victims to the extent that atleast one of the
victims was admittedly working with the IB.
Further explanations would need to be provided
by the IB based on this one certicate alone.
The enquiry concluded by rst nding certain
contradictions with the prosecution witnesses.
Contrary to the position taken in the High Court
petition, two witnesses testied before the enquiry