Skip to main content

Used in Kashmir, pellet guns' specifications, prices are "sensitive defence info", can't be disclosed: Govt of India

By Our Representative
Apparently fearing international fallout, the Government of India has rejected a right to information (RTI) plea seeking specifications, characteristics, pricing and sales data about anti-riot weapons and copies of reports that indicate the efficacy of such weapons and their impact on human beings if targeted.
The RTI plea, made by Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), has been rejected on the ground that it is "sensitive defence information", hence cannot be disclosed. Nayak received the reply of denying information from Khadki Ordnance Factory (KOF), Pune, which is under the Union Defence Ministry.
Wonder Nayak in an email alert sent to Counterview, “How anti-riot weapons and ammunition, used internally, amount to "defence information" is perplexing to say the least. I had not asked information about weapons and ammunition used to defend the country against external aggression.”
The refusal comes close on the heels of news that Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s “directive” of using pellet guns in the rarest of rare situations seems to have no takers among paramilitary Central Reserve Police force (CRPF) and police, who are allegedly firing pellets at people even when they are in their bedrooms or kitchens in Kashmir valley.
It also comes following refusal of the Government of India to allow a UN Human Rights Council team to visit the valley on the ground that "the Indian democracy has all that is required to address legitimate grievances”. 
“The queries were about weapons and ammunition used against citizens within the country”, Nayak says, adding, “Even this information has been denied by invoking Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act without showing how India's 'security interests' would be prejudicially affected by such disclosure.”
“Even more puzzling is the denial of all information on the ground that it is in the nature of commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property whose disclosure may result in harm to the competitive position of a third party”, says Nayak.
In fact according to Nayak, “The OFB's website contains information about the characteristics and specifications of even defence equipment, let alone civilian trade items like revolvers and sporting rifles which their units manufacture.”
This information provided on the website also relates to specifications about mortars, 155mm guns, machine guns and the like, Nayak notes, adding, it also contains information about grenades and rocket bombs.
“Strangely, there is more proactive disclosure about the specifications of defence equipment than anti-riot weapons and ammunition which are used against citizens within the country”, the senior activist comments.
“When the Government has already disclosed the exact number of pellet cartridges and tear gas shells used to quell the violent protests in Kashmir before the High Court, there is no reason why sale price, quantum of sale and efficacy reports cannot be shared with the people proactively”, he adds.
The refusal comes despite the fact that the security forces have reportedly told the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that 3,000 pellet bearing cartridges and 8,650 tear gas cannisters have been used to disperse the Kashmir valley protesters between July-August, which has led to the death of 80 persons so far. Ambulances carrying the injured also bore the brunt of the violence. Hundreds of security personnel also uffered serious injuries, while on duty.
Already, the authorities are discussing alternative methods of dealing with violent mobs to minimise injury. The CRPF has told the J&K High Court that given the dynamic and mobile situation on the ground it would be difficult to follow standard operating procedures (SoPs) for crowd control issued by the Government.
The main force in the valley, it said that the use of pellet guns is an “approved method” according to the SoPs for crowd control, claiming, if pellet guns are done away with, they will have to resort to firing bullets which may hike up the casualty figures.

Comments

Anonymous said…
From all I've read, India is counting the common firearm, the shotgun, as a "Pellet Gun" because it launches multiple spherical "pellets", or tiny "shot" with each discharge. Those little round balls can of course be of different size, making them more or less dangerous depending on the size of the target, its shielding clothing, the concentration of the shot pattern, its weight and velocity, and of course, the distance to the target.

TRENDING

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Visually challenged lady seeks appointment with Gujarat CM, is 'unofficially' detained

By Pankti Jog*
It was a usual noon of November 10. I got a phone call on our Right to Information (RTI) helpline No 9924085000 from Ranjanben of Khambhat, narrating her “disgraceful” experience after she had requested for an appointment with Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani. She wanted to meet Rupani, on tour of the Khambhat area in Central Gujarat as part of his Janvikas Jumbesh (Campaign for Development).

Violent 'Ajodhya' campaign in 1840s after British captured Kabul, destroyed Jama Masjid

Counterview Desk  Irfan Ahmad, professor at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany, and author of “Islamism and Democracy in India” (Princeton University Press, 2009), short-listed for the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Book Prize for the best study in Social Sciences, in his "initial thoughts" on the Supreme Court judgment on the Babri-Jam Janmaboomi dispute has said, while order was “lawful”, it was also “awful.”

There may have been Buddhist stupa at Babri site during Gupta period: Archeologist

By Rajiv Shah
A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there "no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

VHP doesn't represent all Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board all Muslims: NAPM on SC ruling

Counterview Desk
India's top civil rights network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), even as describing the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgement unjust, has said, it is an "assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution". In a statement signed by top social workers and activists, NAPM said, "The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law."

Would those charged for illegally demolishing Babri now manage a new Ram temple?

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*
The long-awaited verdict on the contentious issue of the disputed land in Ayodhya was finally delivered by the Supreme Court on November 9, 2019. The judgement has come after a 70-year-old conflict filled with acrimony, divisiveness, hate and violence between sections of the Hindus and Muslims of the country. At the core of the issue was the Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid dispute: was there a temple on the place where the Masjid was built? To whom should the land be given to?