Encounter Killings

Introduction

The encounter killings by the Indian Police Force in various States have come under scanner by several Civil and Human Rights organizations, but despite all the protests and resistance, the phenomenon finds acceptance and recognition in the society and the present frame of policing. The arguments given for this lawless phenomenon comfortably fills the vacuum created by the sluggish Criminal Justice System in India.

The euphemism ‘Encounter Killings’ has been in use since the 1960s to describe extrajudicial killings. A study conducted by the Asia Pacific Human Rights Network noted that ‘encounter killings were not isolated incidents but occurred as practice throughout India’.

Those wielding the gun have their set of arguments intact to support extrajudicial killings. One of the main reasons for shooting these criminals, they say, is the fact that if these law breakers are able to escape the Courts, they get emboldened and come back with a vengeance. The Parliament Attack of 2001 has become a benchmark for this vicious cycle. According to the police, the masterminds behind the Parliament Attack were the same men released during the Kandahar hijacking of 1999.

The vociferous Human Rights agencies have seldom been heard. Their arguments that the police often shoot innocents in fake encounters simply to win laurels, fades away in thin air. The police’s undeterred statement in every single encounter killing that they fired in ‘self-defense’ and in return the suspect got killed, is too inflated to be believed. The guidelines set by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on how to deal with the encounter killings are seldom followed.

The unfortunate part is that apart from the Human Rights activists, there is no one to keep a watch on the unleashed activities of the police. However, their claims have fallen on deaf ears of the authorities and media has largely ignored the complexities of the issue. The crude class, caste and religious divisions are stark even in encounter killings. The minorities and the marginalized communities are known to bear a greater brunt of it. Media coverage is mostly insensitive to the nuances of the concern, in fact, media somehow makes audiences believe that the person dead was a hardened criminal or a ‘terrorist’ and would have caused grave damage to the national security had not killed.

There is deafening silence in our media about the fact that though India has signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), there has been no ratification on the pretext that existing laws have adequate provisions to prevent torture, in addition to Constitutional safeguards.

Apart from targeting the wider gamut of terrorism, encounter killings are believed to cleanse the local criminals of a State by completely wiping out these ghetto kings. The protectors of law, under the full knowledge of their crime, when gaily flout the rules themselves, they are termed as the real ‘heroes’. They are elevated to a respectful, magical position in the office. Masculinity and heroism is reflected from this post in the police force. The whole aura of power that surrounds these fearless and strong officers is what makes them the reason for their colleagues’ envy.

Contrasting this with the efforts put in by diligent police officers who try to make a change staying in their assigned powers, their efforts often go unrecognized or are perhaps not considered brave enough.

Several Indian films with encounter specialists as protagonists have portrayed them as the real champions. The terror of encounter killings is spread not only by the police but the paramilitary forces stationed across the length and breadth of the country. They are held equally responsible for faking encounters and killing innocent people. The most horrific examples include the operations against Naxalite movements in West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and the operations against Punjab extremists. Tamil Nadu and Kerala committed the excesses of encounter killing during the days of Emergency. The Vimadlal Commission took the lid off so-called encounters in Andhra Pradesh during the mid-1970s. Uttar Pradesh is noted for its encounter deaths and this has assumed alarming proportions in recent times. The paramilitary operations in Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur and Assam cause grave concern as human rights activists report wide spread instances of encounter killings, rape and torture of militant suspects. Surrendered militants are picked from their homes on the slightest of suspicion, are accused of having contacts with banned fundamental organizations and are shot by the army under the full protection of the State.

Treading on this path by the police to overcome the systematic flaws is simply unacceptable. Suggested reforms if followed diligently can bring about a systematic change.

The police is the executive arm of the State. The power it yields is indirectly the power of the State. This phenomenon is State sponsored and encouraged. Hence, to root it out completely, it needs to be struck at point zero. It is the State that needs constant reminders to relinquish this form of hegemony and governance, the reforms in policing will follow.


Police

With immense responsibility over their shoulders, the authority given to police comes with strings attached. The hazardous routine follows even while maintaining law and order and preventing and detecting crime in otherwise normal situations. The situation gets worse when the untrained police force is spilled over with the added duties of checking terrorism and insurgency. The threat to internal security further challenges the position of the law protectors of our nation.

In post-independence India, the police have an appalling record of mishandling communal violence, endemic corruption, and having resource constraints. Handling terrorism in post-independence Punjab was the first real challenge to the administration, especially the police. The inept handling of the same by a professionally mediocre police leadership with direct interference from unprincipled politicians stamped the executive arm of the State with the character of a malignant disease. In effect, questioning their credibility.

The menace in Punjab was ultimately controlled by using controversial methods which are sprouting and are questioned till date. Call it fortunate or unfortunate, it gave an alternative shortcut to many other States’ police across the country thriving to combat organized violence - Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh to name a few.

The Mumbai police once enjoyed the reputation of being the best police force in the country. As the city rose to the stature of being the crime capital, a small, tightly-knit group of policemen took hold of the extortions, random shootings and gang-wars. These policemen are said to have broken the back of the city’s crime syndicates. Mumbai was divided in five territories, each managing one, without competing. The question remains about the methods used by these cops for cleaning up India's commercial and entertainment capital Mumbai.

The Human Rights activists say that the law enforcers regard themselves above the Law. The Mumbai police especially, under the full protection of the State, indulged in encounter killings to clear the criminal mess in the city. Though it is outright unlawful, the city today boasts of its ‘encounter specialists’. This is no such official post, but the officers who indulge in such killings are often rewarded and are honoured as fearless super cops.

Praful Bholse, Vijay Salaskar, Daya Nayak and Pradeep Sharma, four out of five from the Mumbai’s elite Criminal Intelligence Unit, are dreaded by criminals, loathed by Human Rights activists and envied by their colleagues. As organized crime spiraled out of control in the city, these men were assigned the job of wiping out the dirt, guns blazing if necessary.

In 1997 police shot 71 in "encounters", 83 in 1999 and 97 in 2001. In all, since 1982, police have killed 1,200 gangsters in and around Mumbai. Pradeep Sharma, with 100 "successful" encounters with suspected criminals leads the team. Daya Nayak admits to have killed 83 criminals in four years. And Vijay Salaskar, with 33 encounter deaths to his credit, says he has never taken law into his hands.

The effects were out in the open and visible. From two a week at the height of the violence in the early 1990s, inter-gang gun battles are down to two a month. With the dramatic effects of this phenomenon on the crime rates in Mumbai, it soon spread across the continent. The same cops, who are given much of the credit for making the criminal niches in Mumbai spineless, are now accused for the surge of encounter killings in the city.

But unfortunately, the victims of encounter killings recently have not been recognised as hardened criminals. Many believe that the reformed criminals, those with insignificant crime records, fall prey to the police bullets now. As with the immense media propaganda and support for encounter killings, we are repeatedly reminded of the horrors of state terrorism and how these heroic cops keep the city safe for us.

These encounter specialists are also eulogized by Bollywood. Films like Shootout at Lokhandwala, Risk, Ab Tak Chappan, Encounter: The Killing, and many others show the encounter specialists as honest police officers performing their duties well within the law.

But the truth is that the cops can set aside all concern for truth and legality and can act with unholy speed. A lawyer-activist P.A. Sebasian attacked the police saying that in every single encounter killing conducted by the police, they have claimed to have killed in self-defense. Yet in none of these encounters had a single policeman been injured.

Most of the victims are shot in the back, which would perhaps not be the case in a real encounter where the police are also fired upon. The police surgeons who conduct post mortems conveniently doctor the findings to support the encounter myths.

Pradeep Sharma in an interview to a national magazine said that most deaths at his hands have been accidents. "When criminals on the run resist arrest, such encounters happen. It is more of an accident when we go to arrest criminals," said Mr. Sharma. "They fire towards us and in self-defence we also do the same." Daya Nayak said that he does not resort to fake encounter killings. "I am a Brahmin (a high caste Hindu), a teetotaller and a vegetarian. I have no social evil, why should I kill people without a reason?" "We are not trigger-happy," Vijay Salaskar said. "We kill criminals only when we are fired upon first." "The allegations of fake encounters are baseless," says Pradeep Sawant, Bombay's Deputy Police Commissioner. "It's not that we always go to kill. Our idea is to arrest the gangsters. We only retaliate if we're fired upon."

But these claims by the police are seldom believed. The command and control in this uniformed disciplined force is under great stress.

Police being the executive arm of the state, has the responsibility of maintaining the internal security. Instead, it has become the armed wing of the ruling party in these states. It has been thoroughly politicized and in the worst insurgency infected areas, where it is expected to be most vigilant, it is hardly a functional force.

In the J&K police, the Special Operations Group (SOG) better known as the Special Task Force (STF) is particularly notorious for Human Rights violations. Modelled on the Punjab pattern, the J&K STF suffers from the same ills as its predecessor. The Punjab SOG was found guilty of repeated human rights violations, and Civil Courts are still investigating unaccounted for deaths and disappearances. Like in Punjab, STF officers and ranks are given out of turn promotions and large financial rewards proportionate to the number of militants they kill, force to surrender, and the arms they recover. In such an environment, fake encounters, the killing of civilians, including petty criminals, claiming that they are militants are bound to occur and even be rewarded. The Committee appointed for its enquiry repeatedly heard allegations that seized arms and explosives had actually been purchased from the black market, in order to further career prospects and to obtain financial rewards.

The laid-back attitude of the senior officers and playing puppets in the hands of the governments, the politician-police-criminal nexus is getting stronger everyday. These are the two main causes of the apathy that has crept into the police over a period of time. Shorn of pride and commitment to their job, most police officers are content to serve their political masters. In the process, the enforcers of the rule of law are frequently seen to be on the outside of the violators of law.

It is widely evident that in States, it’s the ruling parties that are directly interfering in the recruitment, posting, transfer and promotions of police officers. Beholden to their political masters, the police take less interest in the difficult task of enforcing the rule of law and spend more time in serving their benefactors.

M. Venkatesan, Sub-Inspector of Kilpauk police station, Chennai, says, “We have to maintain the balance. Even though I am prepared to be transferred for my actions some time in life, I would not like it. It will affect my family more than me.”

Zero tolerance for terrorism will remain a rhetorical statement until and unless the police radically improves its performance. And that is not possible without undertaking basic police reforms.


Government

A former civil servant and social activist S.R. Sankaran says that the extrajudicial killings are part of a “deliberate and conscious state administrative practice” for which successive Indian governments must bear responsibility. The failure of various administrative departments to resist illegal orders with devastating consequences from the government reflected the official behaviour in virtually every incident of major national crisis.
The constant complicity and denial of the permanent executive of Human Rights, fake encounter killings and suppression by brute force of militant Maoist/Naxalite uprisings and separatist insurgencies in the North East and later in Punjab and Kashmir, is all starkly visible in the media and elsewhere.
The ruling Congress Party openly engineered the massacre against Sikhs for partisan political gains in 1984 in the wake of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination at the hands of her Sikh body guards in 1984. The massacre left more than 3,000 Sikhs dead. The slaughter of unarmed Muslim youth at Hashimpura by paramilitary soldiers in 1987; the riots in Bhagalpur in 1989; the demolition of Babri masjid in 1992 and the slaughter that followed in its wake in Mumbai and Bhopal; and the state-sponsored massacre in Gujarat in 2002, all these incidents not only stamp the evidence that the state considers itself superior than the law, they also show the partisan ways in which the state makes the other departments dance on its fingertips.
The bureaucracy unresistingly obeyed instructions to deny people their constitutional rights, including to life, liberty and democratic dissent, and failed to extend equal protection of the law to people because of their religious or ethnic identities or economic powerlessness.
In order to prevent such injustices, investigation plays a very important role. Poor investigation gives little hope of prosecuting and convicting the perpetrators. The Central as well as the State governments have terribly failed to ensure adequate enquiry of complaints and reports of the extrajudicial killings hence, the guilty is hardly held accountable for his offence. The lax attitude towards such reports reflects the non-commitment on the governments’ part. Moreover, there is no independent body in India that is empowered to investigate such complaints without bias.

Arundhati Roy in her book, 13 December: The Strange Case of Attack on the Indian Parliament said, “Given the track record of the Indian governments (past, present, right, left and centre), it is naïve – perhaps utopian is a better word – to hope that any government will ever have the courage to institute an inquiry that will, once and for all, uncover the real story. A maintenance dose of cowardice and pusillanimity is probably encrypted in all governments. But hope has little to do with reason.”

When it comes to effectively combating the extrajudicial killings, even though National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a towering institution in India, it is reduced to a toothless tiger. NHRC’s recommendations in relation to the Human Rights violations, more specifically, the extrajudicial killings, have not been given due consideration by the government. This exacerbates NHRC’s ineffectiveness. NHRC has issued guidelines to be followed by the police in case of extrajudicial killings but it is evident that they are never complied; neither do the police feel any pressure from the government to follow them.

The next step after investigation is the prosecution. The Indian government has not merely failed to prosecute those involved with the killings, it has infact provided a protective coverage for them. Through the doctrines of sovereign and official immunity, the Indian Law insulates the officials who commit Human Rights violations.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the sanction of the Central or State government is required to arrest or institute criminal prosecutions against public servants, including police officers and members of the civil or armed forces. The Indian government has ignored the repeated calls by various institutions to amend this law so that these officials lie outside the ambit of state protection and are no longer sheltered from prosecution.

Successive governments have failed to divert attention to various pitfalls in the extrajudicial killing. There is no adequate compensation system in India for the families of those killed. These families don’t even enjoy a statutory right to compensation. Those related to the victims may be encouraged to file reports and fight for justice through judicial process if the compensation system is in place. It may also deter the government from committing and authorizing such crimes. The Indian government is obliged to provide compensation to those affected by the extrajudicial killings under the International Law as well.

There have been various cases where it is quite evident that the governments, instead of opposing extrajudicial killings, encourages and supports the practice. Till now, no extreme reaction against such criminal acts by the police has come to surface. Indeed, the governments now accept these killings as a part of the state machinery and use it as their personal tools. There is evidence that the governments have funded and rewarded the police officers who commit such offences. This clearly shows that the Indian government sanctions extrajudicial killings.

The Amnesty International in its report dated 10 August 2001, about torture in Communist Party of India (Marxist) ruled state of West Bengal observed, "Police are being urged to use whatever means necessary to deal with crime and are often allowed to use torture as a substitute for investigations, while action is rarely taken against the perpetrators. This system of policing is having little if any impact on crime." CPI (M) leader Benoy Konar, defending police brutality once said, "It must be viewed whether police is carrying out torture with a correct aim or an incorrect aim...In a class divided society, the police has the duty of carrying out repression.... You [journalists] have the pen in your hands, the police has the stick." Hence, it would be a mistake to view human rights abuse from an ideological perspective.

The Criminal Procedure Code lays the responsibility for Law and Order squarely in the hands of the police and the magistracy. It gives absolutely no authority to the government to interfere in the role of the police. Yet police abdicate their responsibilities to dance to the tunes of their political masters.


Human Rights

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Life. Extrajudicial killings clearly contravene this right. With the increasing incidents of encounter killings in India, it clearly shows that the government has not followed the International Human Rights Laws.

International Human Rights Law prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life under any circumstances. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) provides that “[e]very human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” Article 4 of the ICCPR states that this right cannot be waived “even in times of public emergency threatening the life of the nation.” The state is obliged to provide effective remedies to the victims of Human Rights violations under Article 2(3)(a) and (b) of the ICCPR.

The Indian Government ratified the ICCPR in 1979. By ratifying an international treaty, India is bound not only to respect that right in principle, but also to take effective measures to ensure that extrajudicial killings do not occur in practice.

As mentioned earlier, the NHRC’s guidelines are seldom followed by the police and the governments with regard to the extrajudicial killings. NHRC has failed to bring the guilty to book for gross human rights violations. Lawyer Seema Gulati warns that the "growing trend of police killings" is endangering India's democratic foundations.

The striking caste and class disparities and biases can be spotted even in the cases of the encounter killings. Human Rights activists have time and again warned against the anti-terrorism and security laws in India, pointing that they facilitate human rights abuses in a large way targeting lower caste and minority communities. Prolonged detention without trial and inflicting torture in jails resulting in custodial deaths abuse the whole idea of security laws in the region.

In the north-eastern part of India, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFPSA) has been quite unpopular, especially in Manipur, as it offers immunity to the army from the Human Rights injustices they commit in the region. This draconian law has been criticized for its 'oppression and high-handedness' by the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee which has asked for scrapping it.

The AFSPA active in many states in India, including J&K, does not define a ‘disturbed area’. It is a prerogative of the Governor of the State or the Central Government to declare an area ‘disturbed’. Under Section 4(a) of the act, even a non-commissioned officer can order his men to shoot to kill ‘if he is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for maintenance of public order.’ This gives very wide discretion to even very junior officers. Section 4(c) of the act permits the arrest without warrant, with whatever ‘force as may be necessary’ vis-a-vis any person against whom ‘a reasonable suspicion exists that he is about to commit a cognizable offence.’ This has provided the basis of indiscriminate arrests, and the use of brutal force including firing against innocent civilians.

Further, Article 4(2) stipulates that no derogation from certain key articles, including Article 6 (right to life), may be made under this provision. But Section 4 of the act empowers firing, which may result in death, merely based on a relatively junior officer’s opinion or suspicion. This violates Article 6(1) of the covenant which states that, ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.’

Human Rights activists have consistently held that the act is also violative of the Constitution. It, like Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Fundamental Rights. A United Nations Human Rights Committee expert pointed out that such an emergency must be a “temporary measure, and cannot be in operation for decades, as this act has been in various parts of India”.

On September 25, 2006, the Committee on International Human Rights of the New York City Bar Association released a report, Anti-Terrorism and Security Laws in India, calling on the Indian government to limit its application of anti-terrorism laws. The report notes "Attentiveness to these human rights concerns is not simply a moral and legal imperative, but also a crucial strategic imperative. As the Supreme Court of India has recognized, 'terrorism often thrives where human rights are violated' and '[t]he lack of hope for justice provides breeding grounds for terrorism.'"

The report bluntly mentions that the excessive powers given under the acts such as TADA, Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were implied as a tool to inflict abuses by the police rather than prosecuting and punishing actual terrorists. Pervasive use of preventive detention, extortion and torture were resorted to by the authorities. The human rights agencies in India as well describe TADA as a lawless law which violates both the Constitution and the International Law.

In Jammu and Kashmir, the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) indicated a total of 708 allegations of human rights violations between 1996 and 1999. These figures are purely based on the complaints made and also it excludes the security forces from the police. Neither the NHRC nor the SHRC is empowered to investigate either the army or the paramilitary forces. These departments have their internal, layered and opaque corrective mechanisms like the court martial, which are not open for public scrutiny. Even though they claim to maintain discipline through the internal checks, it is hardly surprising if the Human Rights violators in the Rashtriya Rifles (RR) and the Border Security Force (BSF) go unchecked.

Even if the army and the paramilitary forces are excluded, the figures that reflect in the media through the human rights agencies are grossly underestimated. A large number of cases do not get registered and many don’t reach the stage of investigation. Given the long and porus procedure of investigation, justice is seldom awarded.


Conclusion

Successive Indian governments have failed to hold the police, the army and the security forces accountable for their actions. Neither have these governments amended the laws which have been regularly condemned for providing a protective shield to those who are involved in the extrajudicial killings.

Even though the armed and security forces enjoy immense powers, they have their internal mechanisms to discipline the officials. But, it is very difficult to access those hearings. Human Rights agencies claim that if the punishment is awarded at all to them, it is grossly inadequate. Human Rights violations should be considered a serious criminal offence and even the army and security force personnel must be charged under the general law and tried in a public court.

Rewarding the officials and security personnel for killing ‘militants’ must be stopped. They should be encouraged, as per the Indian as well as the International Law, to capture the suspects alive.
The problems Indian police force faces today are immense and widely documented. However, police reforms are yet to see the light of the day. The National Police Commission (NPC) submitted its last report in 1981, but till date no Central Government has been willing to implement any of its major recommendations. Even the Supreme Court directives of September 2006, based on the NPC recommendations, have not found favour with the government.
Almost all political parties resist reforms in one pretext or the other. The duties of the police officer, as incorporated in Section 23 of the Police Act are ‘to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued by any competent authority.’ The democratically elected leaders are no better than the colonial masters as they easily manipulate the police for their unsavoury ends and simply ignore the word ‘lawfully’ in actual practice.
The Indian Penal Code enacted in 1860, Criminal Procedure Code in 1862 and the Evidence Act in 1872 have given the semi-literate and ill-trained policemen enormous legal powers. A constable has enormous powers of arrest, search and seizure, but is not trained or paid enough for this job. Some may argue that the police already have enough powers and that it would further corrupt them if empowered with more authority. It needs to be understood that the police reforms are not about giving more powers to the police, but to protect life and property of the ordinary citizens and maintain public order irrespective of caste, creed and religion.
Given the disturbances our country faces today, the need of a professional police force with a well polished training cannot be delayed further. The first step towards reforming the Indian police force is to insulate it from undue political interference and by giving it functional autonomy.
There are well-set rules notified in the police manuals by State governments about postings, transfers and promotions of officers, but they are being blatantly flouted by many persons in high authority. Investigation and Law and Order duties in metropolitan cities must be separated and a fixed tenure must be provided to officers posted in the field. The selection of police chiefs must be more transparent to make it more accountable.
David Bayley, one of the world’s experts on police, has succinctly observed – the police can influence political developments by just being deliberately inactive, or selectively active.
Unfortunately, the government under the pressure of public criticism takes to easier option and short-cuts. Instead of tackling the basic problems and strengthening the Criminal Justice System, it allows the police to combine in itself all the powers of that of the investigator, judge and executioner. If this phenomenon of ‘fake encounters’ is to be eliminated, the criminal justice system needs to be put back on the rails. The corrupt and the incompetent should not be allowed to rise to the top, and in no case should they be entrusted with the cutting-edge jobs with greater scope for indulging in corrupt practices.

Our media also needs to be more conscious. Trapping high potential, media can bring out the human rights violators under the public scrutiny. Public interest creates an opportunity to refocus attention on the issues concerning the masses. There is awareness about the extrajudicial killings in the international arena but the gravity of the systematic nature of this problem is still unknown. The Indian government must be reminded of its obligations under the international law, which can be best done through persistent reminders from the various media.

Media must not ignore the various layers hidden under a larger blanket of what the state terms as ‘internal security’ and ‘fighting terrorism’. Terrorism needs to be understood with a deeper meaning. Terrorism is different from the normal form of violent activities and is resorted to when the conventional forms of protests and agitations do not work. The roots of terrorism lie in misery and frustration arising from neglected causes, which may even be political. The repercussions of killing innocent targets, trading them as ‘terrorists’, and not even giving them a chance to prove their innocence, can in no way solve the bigger problems and disturbances faced by our nation.

Acts and reforms may help in bringing down the encounter killings to a point, but what needs to change is the attitude of the public. The upper class is too comfortable with their money power. The middle class which is supposed to be the transitional point of any society is a sitting duck, unless it is affected. The poorer sections and the minority communities which bear the maximum brunt of atrocities in a state lack representation. Hindustan Times editor Vir Sanghvi says, "We know the vast majority of encounters are fake. We do not think that this is a perfect situation, but in common with the rest of the middle class we have come to the regrettable conclusion that there is no real alternative."

After encountering repeated terror attacks, the public attitude has stiffened. The alternative for the Great Indian middle class is tougher police tactics which they approve, without questioning the authenticity of it. They also demand results, the abuse of which is borne by the marginalized poor.

Praful Bidwai, a social commentator said, "Growing illiberalism and intolerance... lack of moral clarity among large sections of middle class on issues of justice, fairness, pluralism, secularism and other constitutional values, leave alone compassion for the underprivileged."

The Right to Life is the most fundamental right, and its continued abuse in India through the commission of extrajudicial killings
must not be tolerated.