Unquiet Valley

Scores of Kashmiri youth were detained for violence – but Valley has only one juvenile remand home

The state's failure to implement laws for minors may have endangered an unknown number of youth who were detained during the summer unrest.

On a chilly October evening, a crowd in Srinagar banged on the gates of a police station, demanding the release of a teenager who had been detained for attacking vehicles. Policemen came to the gate, batons in hand. As the boy’s angry relatives heckled an officer, the policemen dealt them a few blows before pushing them away. Curses were exchanged as the crowd finally dispersed.

An elderly woman, the grandmother of another detainee, sat on a shopfront opposite the police station. She pleaded for her grandson to be released, claiming he was only 11 years old and had been abandoned by his mother after his policeman-father had died in an encounter.

Inside the police station, officials said parents lying about the age of their children was common practice. The detained boy, they said, was at least 16, and not 11, because his father had died in 2001.

The two boys are among the scores of young Kashmiris, many in their teens and pre-teens, who took to the streets during the protests that raged across Kashmir after the popular Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani was killed by security forces on July 8.

Minors in lock-up

Close to four months on, with the protests having ebbed, attention has turned to the arrests made during that period of turbulence. On October 7, newspaper reports in Kashmir, quoting Special Director General of Police, Coordination and Law and Order, SP Vaid, said that 4,318 people had been arrested, 925 of whom were still in custody. Since then, according to unofficial estimates, the number of detainees has risen to 6,500, of whom between 1,000 to 1,500 are estimated to still be in custody.

An unknown number of juveniles – who are 18 years or younger – are among the arrested and do not figure in the official records. Several of them have been bailed out or sent to juvenile homes. At least two minors were reported to have been arrested under the Public Safety Act by showing them to be adults. This law, under which a person can be detained for up to two years without judicial intervention, was amended in 2012 to bar the detention of minors.

According to advocate Wajid Haseeb, executive magistrates who sanction warrants under the Public Safety Act rely on police dossiers and do not conduct an independent investigation to ascertain whether the accused is a minor. “If the police think no one will produce on records a birth certificate, they mention the age as 18,” he said. “We then plead in the High Court if we have a document [proof of date of birth] and the warrant will be quashed.”

The manner and conditions of incarceration are now a matter of debate. A police official in Srinagar said the usual practice is to send minors – below 16, according to him – to juvenile homes or keep them separated from adults while still in lock-up.

First-time offenders, the official said, are let off with a scolding, after their families give the police a written undertaking that their wards will not indulge in stone-pelting again. “The parents and imams from neighbourhood mosques are called to the police station and asked to reprimand the boy,” he said. But repeat offenders are booked.

However, lawyer Mir Shafkat Hussain rejected this claim. He alleged that juvenile detainees are kept in police lock-ups with adults before being produced in court “on the whim of the police”. He added, “Every parent says their child was detained for 20-25 days before being taken to a court.”

In Srinagar’s lower court, minors mature into adults while following up on their long-drawn-out cases, which range from stone-pelting to mob violence and arson.

Hussain, who has helped many protestors seek bail, said a majority of those detained for stone-pelting were minors, who were often harassed in lock-up. Many detainees were also first-time offenders, he added.

Overcrowded facilities

Reports of families of detainees being charged for food surface each time arrests are made on a large scale. This summer was no different.

The lawyer Wajid Haseeb said the state covers the cost of only those detentions that are in the books. “This is why they charge money from parents for meals,” he said. “Nobody is going to pay if the detainee is not in any record.”

Special Director General of Police SP Vaid acknowledged the reports of families of detainees being charged, but said funds had been released to all senior superintendents to pay police station bills. “Where I get proof [that relatives are being charged money], I will come down very heavily on the police stations and station house officers,” he said.

While scores of minor offenders were detained in the past few months, there is only one juvenile observation home in the entire Valley – a facility with a maximum capacity of 50 at Harwan in Srinagar. Officials of the social welfare department, however, said the number was not static and there had been several occasions when the home had been overcrowded.

Tariq Ahmad, Srinagar district officer for social welfare, said there had been a steady stream of juveniles to the observation home during the early days of the unrest. “But in recent weeks, the numbers have gone down and now, only about five boys accused of stone-pelting remain,” he added.

In 2013, the state passed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. It also agreed to implement the Centre’s Integrated Child Protection Scheme. But it failed to do so fully, leading to the lack of infrastructure to deal with juvenile crime. Lawyers and activists said this was harming minors as they are now detained with adults.

A lawyer, who did not want to be identified, said most juvenile detainees came from poor households with little education and no political awareness. “Once you slap PSA [Public Safety Act] on a juvenile, he cannot go for education or jobs,” he said. “So he does this [stone-pelting]. What else can he do?”

Lack of training

Rouf Malik, who heads the child rights group Koshish, linked the magnitude of protests this summer with the practice of detaining juveniles with adults, saying it affected behaviour patterns and enhanced tendencies among such minors to commit crimes. “They come out as reactionaries,” he said.

A 2011 study by the Delhi-based Asian Centre for Human Rights, Juveniles of Jammu and Kashmir: Unequal before the law and denied justice in custody, found that minors in the state are “assumed to be adults and are detained in adult detention facilities, placing them at very high risk of abuse”. It went on to say that “the lack of juvenile facilities, such as juvenile homes, means that detained delinquents are routinely detained in police lock-ups or in prisons with adults”.

Special Director General of Police Vaid said that juveniles must be kept in juvenile homes, and that the police execute the law once it has been implemented by the government. “We are trying our best to make policemen aware but they need special training and sensitisation to juvenile problems,” he said. “I don’t think my policemen are so sensitised.”

According to Abdul Majeed Bhat, mission director of the Integrated Child Protection Scheme, the biggest problem in the state is the lack of a Juvenile Justice Board, nominations for which have only just been finalised. Unless the board and Child Welfare Committees are formed, “implementation [of the scheme] is not practical”, he added.

Pointing out that Central schemes were exhaustive and made malpractice difficult, Malik said their non-implementation in the state was disappointing. “Security laws come directly [to Kashmir] but welfare acts such as these are not directly imposed and implemented,” he added.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.

Play

In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.

Play

Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.

Play

The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.

Play

The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.