Seized weapons vanish from military

[mizzima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

--------------D3BAFDE4947A8F87B7B3A43B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

         Seized weapons vanish from military custody in Andamans

The Times of India (New Delhi)
April 22, 2001

By Subir Bhaumik

Weapons seized by the Indian forces from a group of Myanmarese rebels in
February 1998 are not been wholly handed over to the court, despite
legal stipulations. In the interest of further intelligence
investigations, they are being retained by the military. And going by
the court records, most of the weapons have disappearing.

? The raises a very important question about who is a gunrunner in this
particular case the Myanmarese rebels accused of that charge or sections
of the Indian military who might be siphoning these weapons off for
whatever purpose,? says Nandita Haksar, counsel for the 36 rebels.

The Sunday Times of India exposed last week how the Indian military
intelligence used the National Unity Party of Arakans (NUPA) for five
years (1993-1998) to keep a close watch on Chinese and Myanmarese naval
activity in the Bay of Bengal before Delhi?s relations with Yangon began
to improve and the rebels were dumped.

A section of Indian military intelligence officials, having fleeced the
rebels of more than fifty thousand dollars, allegedly killed six NUPA
leaders and arrested more than seventy of them after they had arrived in
the Landfall islands of the Andamans to set up base.

NUPA leaders allege that some of these Indian military intelligence
officials were lavishly rewarded by the Myanmarese junta on a personal
basis.

Thirty six rebels are now in the Andamans, standing trial and
desperately seeking to avoid possible deportation to Myanmar.

Further investigations by the Sunday Times of India reveal the
continuous disappearance from military custody of weapons seized from
the NUPA rebels in February 1998.

Nandita Haksar says that the first seizure list submitted in court along
with the FIR filed by Lieutenant Commander R.S Dhankar Deputy Naval
Provost Marshal in Fortress Andaman and Nicobar indicate a seizure of
138 weapons of various make and forty thousand rounds of ammunition.

The FIR was filed by Lieutenant Commander Dhankar for the Fortress
Commander of Andaman and Nicobar, a joint-services command fifteen days
after the rebels had been captured and their leaders allegedly killed.

The delay in filing the FIR itself raises a number of questions. Some
police officials in the Andamans suggest the military was trying to shy
away from going legal and was not interested in filing a FIR but were
forced to do so under pressure from the police and the island
administration.

The military, accused of cold blooded murder of the six Arakanese rebels
from Myanmar, has subsequently refused to cooperate with both the court
and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) something that the CBIs
Investigating Officer has observed in court at regular intervals.

As late as 6th July 1998, the CBIs Investigating Officer wanted further
time from the court to produce witnesses from defence forces as required
under Section 161 of the CRPC.

And he observed: ?properties confiscated by the military has not yet
been handed over to the police.?

Ever since then, the CBI has complained about the lack of progress in
investigation because of the delay in getting case properties (weapons
and equipment seized from the rebels) from the defence authorities as
their personal witnesses.

Finally, the CBI managed to get some weapons and ammunition as case
properties. They were promptly sent off for forensic examination, on
completion of which the CBIs deputy superintendent J. Nayak submitted a
report before the court in Port Blair on 17th May last year.

Nayak says in his deposition: ?The CBI has requested the defence
authorities a number of times and even issued notices under Section 160
and 161 of CRPC to cooperate in the investigation of the case with
supplying documents/ information as well as witnesses.?

Even the higher authorities of the CBI has taken up the matter with the
Home Ministry as well as the Defence Ministry. But appropriate response
from Defence authorities is still awaited.

But what Nayak says about case properties raises alarm.

His deposition says: ?In the meantime, the CBI has received the result
of the examination of arms and ammunition captured by the defence
authorities along with these militants from the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory Delhi.

The result of such examination is four 7.62mm assault rifles, one. 30 US
carbine, one  .30 special revolver, one 7.65mm pistol are firearms as
defined in the Arms Act 1959 and are in working condition and seven
hundred twenty rounds of 7.62 mm assault rifle ammunition, two thousand
six hundred. 30 US carbine ammunition, sixteen. 38 special catridges and
fortyone 7.65 mm catridges.

There is an obvious discrepancy. From 138 weapons, we are down to seven
and from forty thousand rounds of ammunition we are down to less than
four thousands rounds of ammunition of various make.?

Where have the rest gone? Does the Fortress Andaman authorities still
need the rest of the weapons and ammunition for further intelligence
investigations as suggested in the FIR by Lieutenant Commander R. S
Dhankar?

The NUPA foreign secretary Khin Maung alleges that much of the weapons
seized from them have found their way into the thriving black market
that exists around Bangladesh?s coastal town of Cox?s Bazar.

?We are not gunrunners, we are freedom fighters struggling against one
of the world is most repressive regimes. But section of the Indian army
have furned gunrunners. Why cannot they produce all the weapons seized
from us?? asks Khin Maung. That?s a good question, though there?s no way
of verifying the NUPA charge that some Indian military officers have
sold off the seized weapons in the blackmarket for hard cash. After
Tehelka, it will not be surprising to believe if that happened.

The NUPA has raised another issue. Going by the original record of
seized weapons, they have argued the diversity of weapons in their
possession indicate personal use rather than gun-running. Weapons
experts agree with the NUPA contention.

Says a former intelligence bureau official: ?Gunrunners bring in weapons
in crates. You will find bulk supplies, like fifty crates of AK-47 and
fifty crates of AK-56 rifles that kind of thing. The weapons seized from
the rebels don?t fall into that pattern,? says the official but he is
unwilling to be named.

The section exhibit B attached to the FIR indicates that 53 AK-47
rifles, 11 AK-56 rifles, 39 M-16 rifles, four US. 30 carbines, one .32
pistol and one .38 revolver comprised the small arms bit seized from the
rebels.

They also had one KPWT, one Heavy machine gun, four general purpose
machine guns, 9 Rocket propelled Grenade launchers, one 57mm RCL and
four old version RPGs.

So where did the single 7.65mm pistol examined by the forensic
laboratory in Delhi come from? Was it seized or planted later? As the
mystery of Operation Leech deepens, the military continues to stonewall
investigations.

Now Sunday Times of India learns that not one but four military
officials have been forced to go on premature retirement. No reward but
a safe way of allowing its officers to retain ill-gotten wealth made by
the taking the country and its taxpayers for a ride.

(Subir Bhaumik is the BBC?s East Inida Correspondent and an acclaimed
expert on eastern India, Bangladesh and Myanmar)



--------------D3BAFDE4947A8F87B7B3A43B
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>

<center><b><font color="#0000FF"><font size=+2>Seized weapons vanish from
military custody in Andamans</font></font></b></center>

<p><font color="#990000"><font size=+1>The Times of India (New Delhi)</font></font>
<br><font color="#990000"><font size=+1>April 22, 2001</font></font>
<p><font size=+1>By <font color="#800040">Subir Bhaumik</font></font>
<p><font size=+1>Weapons seized by the Indian forces from a group of Myanmarese
rebels in February 1998 are not been wholly handed over to the court, despite
legal stipulations. In the interest of further intelligence investigations,
they are being retained by the military. And going by the court records,
most of the weapons have disappearing.</font>
<p><font size=+1>? The raises a very important question about who is a
gunrunner in this particular case the Myanmarese rebels accused of that
charge or sections of the Indian military who might be siphoning these
weapons off for whatever purpose,? says Nandita Haksar, counsel for the
36 rebels.</font>
<p><font size=+1>The Sunday Times of India exposed last week how the Indian
military intelligence used the National Unity Party of Arakans (NUPA) for
five years (1993-1998) to keep a close watch on Chinese and Myanmarese
naval activity in the Bay of Bengal before Delhi?s relations with Yangon
began to improve and the rebels were dumped.</font>
<p><font size=+1>A section of Indian military intelligence officials, having
fleeced the rebels of more than fifty thousand dollars, allegedly killed
six NUPA leaders and arrested more than seventy of them after they had
arrived in the Landfall islands of the Andamans to set up base.</font>
<p><font size=+1>NUPA leaders allege that some of these Indian military
intelligence officials were lavishly rewarded by the Myanmarese junta on
a personal basis.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Thirty six rebels are now in the Andamans, standing trial
and desperately seeking to avoid possible deportation to Myanmar.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Further investigations by the Sunday Times of India reveal
the continuous disappearance from military custody of weapons seized from
the NUPA rebels in February 1998.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Nandita Haksar says that the first seizure list submitted
in court along with the FIR filed by Lieutenant Commander R.S Dhankar Deputy
Naval Provost Marshal in Fortress Andaman and Nicobar indicate a seizure
of 138 weapons of various make and forty thousand rounds of ammunition.</font>
<p><font size=+1>The FIR was filed by Lieutenant Commander Dhankar for
the Fortress Commander of Andaman and Nicobar, a joint-services command
fifteen days after the rebels had been captured and their leaders allegedly
killed.</font>
<p><font size=+1>The delay in filing the FIR itself raises a number of
questions. Some police officials in the Andamans suggest the military was
trying to shy away from going legal and was not interested in filing a
FIR but were forced to do so under pressure from the police and the island
administration.</font>
<p><font size=+1>The military, accused of cold blooded murder of the six
Arakanese rebels from Myanmar, has subsequently refused to cooperate with
both the court and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) something
that the CBIs&nbsp; Investigating Officer has observed in court at regular
intervals.</font>
<p><font size=+1>As late as 6th July 1998, the CBIs Investigating Officer
wanted further time from the court to produce witnesses from defence forces
as required under Section 161 of the CRPC.</font>
<p><font size=+1>And he observed: ?properties confiscated by the military
has not yet been handed over to the police.?</font>
<p><font size=+1>Ever since then, the CBI has complained about the lack
of progress in investigation because of the delay in getting case properties
(weapons and equipment seized from the rebels) from the defence authorities
as their personal witnesses.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Finally, the CBI managed to get some weapons and ammunition
as case properties. They were promptly sent off for forensic examination,
on completion of which the CBIs deputy superintendent J. Nayak submitted
a report before the court in Port Blair on 17th May last year.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Nayak says in his deposition: ?The CBI has requested the
defence authorities a number of times and even issued notices under Section
160 and 161 of CRPC to cooperate in the investigation of the case with
supplying documents/ information as well as witnesses.?</font>
<p><font size=+1>Even the higher authorities of the CBI has taken up the
matter with the Home Ministry as well as the Defence Ministry. But appropriate
response from Defence authorities is still awaited.</font>
<p><font size=+1>But what Nayak says about case properties raises alarm.</font>
<p><font size=+1>His deposition says: ?In the meantime, the CBI has received
the result of the examination of arms and ammunition captured by the defence
authorities along with these militants from the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory Delhi.</font>
<p><font size=+1>The result of such examination is four 7.62mm assault
rifles, one. 30 US carbine, one&nbsp; .30 special revolver, one 7.65mm
pistol are firearms as defined in the Arms Act 1959 and are in working
condition and seven hundred twenty rounds of 7.62 mm assault rifle ammunition,
two thousand six hundred. 30 US carbine ammunition, sixteen. 38 special
catridges and fortyone 7.65 mm catridges.</font>
<p><font size=+1>There is an obvious discrepancy. From 138 weapons, we
are down to seven and from forty thousand rounds of ammunition we are down
to less than four thousands rounds of ammunition of various make.?</font>
<p><font size=+1>Where have the rest gone? Does the Fortress Andaman authorities
still need the rest of the weapons and ammunition for further intelligence
investigations as suggested in the FIR by Lieutenant Commander R. S Dhankar?</font>
<p><font size=+1>The NUPA foreign secretary Khin Maung alleges that much
of the weapons seized from them have found their way into the thriving
black market that exists around Bangladesh?s coastal town of Cox?s Bazar.</font>
<p><font size=+1>?We are not gunrunners, we are freedom fighters struggling
against one of the world is most repressive regimes. But section of the
Indian army have furned gunrunners. Why cannot they produce all the weapons
seized from us?? asks Khin Maung. That?s a good question, though there?s
no way of verifying the NUPA charge that some Indian military officers
have sold off the seized weapons in the blackmarket for hard cash. After
Tehelka, it will not be surprising to believe if that happened.</font>
<p><font size=+1>The NUPA has raised another issue. Going by the original
record of seized weapons, they have argued the diversity of weapons in
their possession indicate personal use rather than gun-running. Weapons
experts agree with the NUPA contention.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Says a former intelligence bureau official: ?Gunrunners
bring in weapons in crates. You will find bulk supplies, like fifty crates
of AK-47 and fifty crates of AK-56 rifles that kind of thing. The weapons
seized from the rebels don?t fall into that pattern,? says the official
but he is unwilling to be named.</font>
<p><font size=+1>The section exhibit B attached to the FIR indicates that
53 AK-47 rifles, 11 AK-56 rifles, 39 M-16 rifles, four US. 30 carbines,
one .32 pistol and one .38 revolver comprised the small arms bit seized
from the rebels.</font>
<p><font size=+1>They also had one KPWT, one Heavy machine gun, four general
purpose machine guns, 9 Rocket propelled Grenade launchers, one 57mm RCL
and four old version RPGs.</font>
<p><font size=+1>So where did the single 7.65mm pistol examined by the
forensic laboratory in Delhi come from? Was it seized or planted later?
As the mystery of Operation Leech deepens, the military continues to stonewall
investigations.</font>
<p><font size=+1>Now Sunday Times of India learns that not one but four
military officials have been forced to go on premature retirement. No reward
but a safe way of allowing its officers to retain ill-gotten wealth made
by the taking the country and its taxpayers for a ride.</font>
<p><i><font size=+1>(Subir Bhaumik is the BBC?s East Inida Correspondent
and an acclaimed expert on eastern India, Bangladesh and Myanmar)</font></i>
<p>&nbsp;</html>

--------------D3BAFDE4947A8F87B7B3A43B--