Canada calls BSF anti-human, violent unit

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Terming BSF “notoriously violent’’, Canada rejects ex-constable’s visa​

Vinay Kumar


The Canadian government’s decision to deny a former BSF constable a permanent visa on the grounds that the Border Security Force – from which he retired in 2000 – is a “notoriously violent paramilitary unit … engaged in systematic attacks on civilians” has vitiated relations with Ottawa barely weeks before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is due to visit Canada.

“I received a letter from the Canadian High Commission on December 8 last year informing me that my visa application has been rejected. It said that visa was being denied to me since I was a member of the BSF, which it accused of committing crimes against humanity”, Fateh Singh Pandher, now in his late sixties, told The Hindu on Friday on phone from Ludhiana.

The former BSF constable said that he, along with his wife, had visited Canada in 2005 for six months and then returned home. ``Since one of my daughters is settled in Canada, I and my wife also wanted to live with her and applied for permanent visa in 2008 but in 2009 my application was rejected because of my former employment in the BSF,’’ he said.

Mr. Pandher said that he took up the matter with the BSF headquarters, which later drew the attention of the Home Ministry and Ministry of External Affairs to it.

Indian officials told The Hindu that the Canadian letter, signed by Eric Verner, First Secretary (Immigration) in the Canadian High Commission in Delhi was an affront to the country and the government and that a serious view had been taken of it at the highest levels. “The decision to grant or deny a visa is Canada’s sovereign right”, an official said but “they have no right to pass this kind of judgment on the BSF, which is one of our border guarding security forces”.

Though the letter to Mr. Pandher was sent last December, it was only brought to the notice of the government recently.

“We are not keeping quiet about this”, an official said, adding that the issue had already been taken up with Canada. There was added sensitivity because the Prime Minister is due to visit Toronto for G-20 summit in June.

On the record, all that the MEA spokesperson was prepared to say was ``the matter has come to the attention of the Ministry and has been appropriately taken up with the Canadian side.’’

The Canadian letter told Mr. Pandher that he was being denied a visa “because there is reason to believe you are a member of the inadmissible class of persons” involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity. It noted that he had been a part of the BSF from 1975 to 2000, and that one-third of the force is deployed in Jammu and Kashmir. Citing “open source research”, it said the “notoriously violent” BSF has been engaged in systematic attacks on civilians and in “systematically torturing suspected criminals”.

The letter said Mr. Pandher had “admitted” being aware of the fact that the BSF was responsible for committing crimes against humanity “as you had read about it in the newspaper”. But since he had not disassociated himself from the BSF despite being aware of these crimes, he was an accomplice and was thus ineligible to enter Canada.

Keywords: BSF, visa denied, Canada, MEA
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article435451.ece

===========

I don't think that there is any argument the BSF has committed atrocities, but the manner in which it was singled out, and this individual was denied a visa does not seem appropriate.

If Canada wants to publish a list of such organizations it considers as committing HR violations, and then apply such visa restrictions uniformly, then perhaps its stance would be understandable.

 

[Creder]

The letter said Mr. Pandher had “admitted” being aware of the fact that the BSF was responsible for committing crimes against humanity “as you had read about it in the newspaper”.

thats a new angle

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

is it a big news in media or just on PDF ?

Its front page news on many Indian news sites.

 

[TopCat]

good job canada...
Every other day this force is killing unarmed civilian in BD front. They dont even spare women and infant not even their own citizen. In one instance hanged a guy upside down from a tree, beat him to death and rape his wife 100 times by all the BSF on guard. The case is still pending by human rights group.. What a shame.

 

[pak-yes]

The banning of religious symbols, certain types of clothing associated with religion, religious architecture etc. are certainly condemnable offences IMO and do reflect a violation of an individuals right to practice their faith, but I am not aware of Canada, the US or the UK having passed laws on those.

Drawing caricatures of historical figures, even if it offends some (Christians and Muslims) is not a 'violation of human rights'. It may be an insensitive and crass exercise of free speech, but it is no violation of someones rights.

The same with women - the West does not impose dress codes on women (except when some European countries ban certain religiously motivated attire) nor does it 'forcibly' objectify women. Many Western women choose to do so themselves, though it is a complex argument of how pressures from society play a role in that 'objectification', but it is certainly not something Western governments force women to do.

1.I am sure that that USA,UK or even UK will soon pass these laws following the examples of their continental European Counter Parts.

2.If someone insults you publicly or posts degrading material about you i think you are entitled to sue him.So Why can't file lawsuits when someone insults Prophet MUHAMMAD(S.A.W.W).Our Religion commands to hold Prophet MUHAMMAD(S.A.W.W) dear than everything on earth.So Why can't i sue you when you hurt something dear to me.Prophet is not a simple Political Personality that you can ridicule whenever you want.
Problem with the world is that they only see physical torture as human right violations but seem to ignore the mental torture they do to 1.5 Billion People.

3.The moment state says to women to observe a dress code it subtly objectifies women who have to obey the commands of the state on matters completely related to themselves.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1.I am sure that that USA,UK or even UK will soon pass these laws following the examples of their continental European Counter Parts.

Whether or not they will pass laws violating an individual's rights to practice religion like some Western European nations is speculation at this point.

It is therefore not appropriate to criticize the US, Canada and UK for rights violations they have not committed yet.

2.If someone insults you publicly or posts degrading material about you i think you are entitled to sue him.So Why can't file lawsuits when someone insults Prophet MUHAMMAD(S.A.W.W).Our Religion commands to hold Prophet MUHAMMAD(S.A.W.W) dear than everything on earth.So Why can't i sue you when you hurt something dear to me.Prophet is not a simple Political Personality that you can ridicule whenever you want.
Problem with the world is that they only see physical torture as human right violations but seem to ignore the mental torture they do to 1.5 Billion People.

Drawing a caricature of a figure is not slander, since the intent is clearly one of sarcasm, irony and/or humor in these cases.

Slander is generally defined as ' A false and malicious statement or report about someone that is injurious to a person's reputation'. Cartoons and caricatures typically do not come under the definition of slander since, as I mentioned, the intent is clearly humor or sarcasm.

It is also, AFAIK, not possible for someone not directly affected by slander (the person whose reputation is ruined generally) to go to court claiming damages from slander.

3.The moment state says to women to observe a dress code it subtly objectifies women who have to obey the commands of the state on matters completely related to themselves.

And so far only some European nations have done that, and even there have only restricted the Burqa, not the Hijab, though some (France and Turkey) have restrictions on the headscarf as well, which I agree is by all means a violation of an individual's religious rights. But the US, UK and Canada have not done it, so be specific in your criticism.

Any way, lets get back to topic.

 

[gaurish]

The point here is they are if they are banning BSF which is of Indian Army, Indian army belongs to India, so the conclusion would be to ban every Indian from getting a visa in canada..

Not defending anybody but Human rights violations take place in every country.

I cannot understand what the govt of Canada is trying to prove....
If this is the case Americans should be banned first for their inhuman and total blatant violation of human rights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan...

Canada govt is going nuts over this

 

[gaurish]

good job canada...
Every other day this force is killing unarmed civilian in BD front. They dont even spare women and infant not even their own citizen. In one instance hanged a guy upside down from a tree, beat him to death and rape his wife 100 times by all the BSF on guard. The case is still pending by human rights group.. What a shame.

This topic was brought up show the insensibility of the Canadian govt..

As far as civillians are concerned, Unarmed Indian citizens are also getting killed on their own turf by terrorists entering through many border routes including Bangladesh... dont jump to conclusions. BSF also has a tough job with them...

 

[Gabbar]

I haven't heard any thing about this in Canada but in India it's on every newspaper. I wouldn't be surprised it Canada issues an appology very soon. But BSF has been involved in criminal activiteis in North-East, Punjab(in late 80s and early 90s) where thousands of youths were arrested and never seen again. Unless Canada have evidence or this force is added to some sort of banned list, I dont know under what law they can deny visa to one person?

 

[PakSher]

The Canadian High Commission has called the Border Security Force "a notoriously violent paramilitary unit" responsible for "war crimes in India", while rejecting an immigration request from a retired BSF trooper.

In a communication to retired BSF head constable Fateh Singh Pandher (60), the high commission accused the BSF of "systematic attacks on civilians" and said Pandher had not provided evidence of disassociating himself from the force.

An angry home ministry has complained about this to the foreign ministry.

"This is an insult to the entire force that guards this country's border," a senior government official said.

The diplomatic gaffe comes weeks ahead of the 20th anniversary of the Kanishka bombing and amid mounting concerns in New Delhi security's establishment that Canada was not doing enough to check attempts by Khalistani terrorists from resurrecting the movement.

"The matter has come to the attention of the Ministry of External Affairs, and has been appropriately taken up with
the Canadian side," said MEA spokesman Vishnu Prakash.

"The Canadian High Commission has not just attacked me but my country and my force (BSF)," Pandher said.

BSF in crimes of war: Canada- Hindustan Times

 

[RobbieS]

Ho gaya bhai...There's already a thread on the topic.

 

[gogbot]

We have great respect for India's armed forces: Canada

In an attempt to control damage caused by stinging remarks by one of its diplomats against BSF, Canada on Saturday said it has "great respect" for India's armed forces and that it was "reviewing the situation" that has arisen.

Canada's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Catherine Loubier said in an e-mail statement that "vibrant people-to-people" connections are one of the "greatest strengths" of India-Canada relations which continue to be strengthened.

"I would like to stress that Canada has the highest regard for India's democratic institutions and processes.

Canada has great respect for India's armed forces and related institutions," she said in the statement mailed to PTI.

The statement came in the wake of revelation of remarks of a First Secretary of the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi that BSF was a "notoriously violent" force which indulged in "systematic attack" and "systematic torture" of suspected criminals.

The diplomat had made the comments while rejecting the visa application of a retired BSF constable.

The External Affairs Ministry has already taken up the issue with the Canadian government. "We are reviewing the situation," the Canadian spokesperson said but did not elaborate citing "privacy reasons"

Loubier said India is a country with growing influence on the global stage and "our past has been marked by friendship and by strong ties that bind us closer than ever. We are also democratic nations that are ethnically, spiritually and linguistically diverse."

She noted that the Indo-Canadian community is approximately one million strong and makes significant contributions to the strength of Canada's economy as well as to people-to-people links between our two countries.

The Canada-India ties continue to strengthen following the very successful visit to India by a strong delegation led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last November, she said.

With regard to visas, Loubier said decisions are made by public servants following an independent process governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

____________________________________________________

interesting comment's

Every security force is a violent force. Nobody is going to greet terrorists with flowers and welcome drinks, especially when they're disguised as civilians. Naturally terrorists aren't going to come in their stereotypical haji costumes, and naturally there are bound to be false-positives. How many false-positives did the NATO forces not have in Iraq and Afghanistan (where innocent civilians were mistaken for insurgent)?

Will Canada have the balls to deny visa to an Englishman who's serving in his army on grounds that he is associated with a violent force that kills and tortures innocent civilians in Iraq? No, of course they wouldn't. Stupid canucks.

For me the BSF is not violent as it should be. They need to be even more pro active and pre emptive. How many BSF men have lost their lives in unprovoked firing from the Pakistanis and Bangladeshi rangers? But the BSF silently bears it only lodging protests, The Canadians are just one bunch of holier than thou people who sit pretty under the US umbrella and spout anything they want.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

my own comments,

It's easy for Canada to criticize the border security of India , especially when they have so much trouble doing it on their long border and largest de-militarised border with the USA.

they have no way to understand the tense situation and fragile situation of actually sharing borders with nations you cant trust.

Especially when they never suffer form cross border violence.

The Canadians have such weak borders in fact , the Mexican drug cartels , now find it easier to fly the drugs to Canada and move through the transparent US-Canada border.

 

[psychedelic_renegade]

Just a regular damage controlling, GOI really needs to grow a pair now, it's not 1970 that this holier than thou attitude of western countries will not be answered appropriately.

 

[jha]

BSF fiasco: Canada in quick damage-control mode: Rediff.com India News



'Canada has the greatest respect for Indian Armed forces'
May 22, 2010 02:22 IST


A statement made by Canadian High Commission in New Delhi [ Images ] against the Border Security Force has been contradicted by an official spokeswoman of Canada's [ Images ] Minister for Foreign Affairs.

In a telephonic interview today, Catherine Loubier, told rediff.com that "Canada has the greatest respect for Indian Armed forces and related institutions".

The Canadian High Commission rejected visa application of one Fateh Singh Pandher, a retired constable with the Border Security Force. Reports say his visa application was rejected as the High Commission, Pandher reportedly says, 'described the BSF as a violent paramilitary unit and is engaged in systematic attacks on civilians and responsible for torturing suspected criminals. According to Fateh's claim, the Canadian High Commission further 'holds the BSF responsible for committing crime against humanity'.

When asked whether the Canadian government agrees with this claim of the High Commission, Loubier said, "On the contrary I am telling you Canada has the highest regard for the Indian armed forces and related institutions."

So, you are contradicting the claim made by Canadian officials in New Delhi? "That would be correct," she conceded. "I am telling you something quite different (than what the High Commission said) and I am telling you we are reviewing the situation very closely."

But in regard to Pandher's visa application, Loubier said "Decisions on visa applications are made by public servants following process under the Immigration and Protection Act.

"I want to stress we are reviewing the situation. I can't unfortunately give details because of privacy reasons…"

And then she emphasized that "India [ Images ] is a country with growing influence on the global stage, and Canada and India … have close ties that bind us…"

She then referred to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's official visit to India November last year and alluded to the fact that there are over one million persons of Indian origin in Canada. "They make a significant contributions to the strength of Canada's economy."

Loubier repeatedly said they are "reviewing the situation" but she, for various reasons, wouldn't amplify but she had no qualm in clearly admitting that on behalf of Minister for Foreign Affairs she was contradicting the remarks made by the High Commission against BSF.

 

[jha]

Here you go ..another damage control...indian govt. should not let them go easily this time...how can an official in high commission make such a statement which contradicts the their national policy...