AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA

16-AUGUST-2016
BENGALURU
Amnesty International Indias response to complaint filed by ABVP
On 15 August, a First Information Report was reportedly registered against Amnesty International
India with regard to an event held on 13 August, based on a complaint filed by an ABVP
representative.
The allegations mentioned in the complaint are without substance. They are preventing the
families of victims of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir from having their stories
heard. And preventing civil society organisations from enabling these families to exercise their
constitutional right to justice.
Amnesty International India's vision is for every person in India to enjoy the rights enshrined in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international human rights standards, and the
Constitution of India. We are independent of any political, economic or ideological interests.
The event was held as part of a campaign based on the report Denied: Failures in accountability
for human rights violations by security force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir, published in
July 2015, and publicly available. The report documents the obstacles to justice faced in several
cases of human rights violations believed to have been committed by Indian security force
personnel in Jammu and Kashmir. It focuses particularly on Section 7 of the Armed Forces
(Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 (AFSPA), which grants virtual immunity to
members of the security forces from prosecution in civilian courts for alleged human rights
violations.
The report was based on in-depth research in Jammu and Kashmir, including interviews with
family members of victims, Right to Information applications, examination of police and court
records, and interviews with civil society groups, lawyers, and government officials.
The families of three Kashmiri victims that were interviewed for the report were invited to share
their stories at the event.
Below is a point-by-point rebuttal to the allegations raised in the complaint.
1) Sindhujaa Iyengar, a political science lecturer at a private university in Bengaluru, Seema
Mustafa and Roushan Illahi sang anti-national songs and raised anti-national slogans.
Sindhujaa Iyengar is an employee of Amnesty International India. She was not present on
stage at any point during the event. Seema Mustafa is a senior journalist. She moderated
a discussion with affected families at the event. Neither of them sang any songs or raised
any slogans at any point.
The only musical performance was a song by Roushan Illahi (also known as MC Kash) at
the end of the event, about growing up amid violence in Kashmir.

Video footage of the event which was recorded by Amnesty International India has been
shared with the police.
2) Sindhujaa Iyengar, Seema Mustafa and Roushan Illahidelivered anti-national speeches
against soldiers.
The only speech delivered at the event was by Amnesty International Indias Programmes
Director, Tara Rao, which referred to allegations of human rights violations by security
force personnel. These allegations are laid out in detail in Amnesty International Indias
2015 report, and have been widely reported and discussed. The Peoples Democratic
Party (PDP), which is part of the current ruling coalition in Jammu and Kashmir, had
welcomed the recommendations of the report when it was published.
The families who attended the event spoke of their own personal stories of loss, as per
the programme of the event. One of the families who attended the event was that of
Shahzad Ahmad Khan, one of the men killed in the Machil extra-judicial execution, for
which five security force personnel were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Amnesty International India also invited R.K. Mattoo, a representative of the Kashmiri
Pandit community in Bengaluru to speak about the human rights violations faced by
members of the community.
3) Slogans were raised that Indian Kashmir should be part of Pakistan.
No Amnesty International India employee shouted any slogans at any point.
4) The event indirectly supported terrorists.
The only discussion at the event was about allegations of human rights violations and the
denial of justice to families in Kashmir. These are issues that have regularly been
discussed in the media. They have been written about at length by members of
Parliament, politicians, judges and civil society. In July 2016, the Supreme Court, in a
ruling relevant to the issues discussed at the event, stated that the armed forces do not
enjoy impunity for human rights violations.
5) The eventindirectly supported Pakistan and the ISI.
The focus of the event was squarely on allegations of human rights violations and the
denial of justice in Jammu and Kashmir.
Amnesty International has worked extensively on human rights violations in Pakistan,
including the enforced disappearances and unlawful killings of political activists in
Balochistan, violations by security forces in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas
(FATA) , and violence against journalists by groups including the ISI.
6) When ABVP activists tried stopping the attack, people tried to assault them.
No Amnesty International India employee was involved in any form of assault against
anyone.

Towards the end of the event, some of those who attended raised slogans, some of which referred
to calls for Azaadi (freedom). Amnesty International India as a matter of policy does not take
any position in favour of or against demands for self-determination. However, Amnesty
International India considers that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to
peacefully advocate political solutions
Amnesty International India had invited the Bengaluru police to be present at the event, in the
interest of the security of the invited families and other attendees. We have shared our footage of
the event with the police.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled on multiple occasions, notably in the case of Kedar Nath
Singh versus State of Bihar, that speech would amount to sedition only if it involved incitement
to violence or public disorder. The court ruled: "[C]riticism of public measures or comment on
Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be
consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
In the case of Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled: Mere discussion
or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of [the right to
freedom of expression]. It stated that the right could be restricted only when such discussion
or advocacy reaches the level of incitement.