Will Rahul Gandhi ever defeat Modi?



I. Procedure:

The complainant, an Indian national, applied for international protection on November 6, 2013. He was questioned in writing on the following day by an organ of the public security service.

When asked about his reasons for fleeing, the complainant essentially stated that he had to leave his home country for political reasons. He was threatened in his home country because he was a member of the TDP party, which defeated the opposing BJP party in the last village council election. Since then, he has been threatened with killing by supporters of the BJP party.

The complainant comes from the city of XXXX. At the beginning of 2015, he made the decision to leave his home country. He began his travel movement from his home town and left his home country on October 6, 2013 with a truck supported by a truck. The trip lasted until November 5th, 2013.

On March 6, 2015, the complainant was sentenced by the Vienna Regional Court for Criminal Matters to a two-month conditional prison sentence with a three-year probationary period for the offense under Sections 223 (2) and 224 of the Criminal Code.

In the course of his interrogation before the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum on February 3, 2016, Regional Directorate Vienna, the complainant essentially put the following on record:


LA: Are there any grounds for bias or other objections to the people present?

VP: No.

LA: How do you understand the interpreter present?

VP: Very good.

LA: Will you be represented by someone in the proceedings or is there a power of attorney for someone?

VP: No.

LA: You are expressly advised that you can inquire at any time in the event of communication difficulties. I want to be sure that everything you said was meant to be.

VP: Yes.

LA: Do you feel mentally and physically able to truthfully answer the questions asked?

VP: Yes.

LA: How are your health? Are you receiving medical treatment, are you taking any medication?

VP: I am healthy.

LA: Please tell me your name and date and place of birth.

VP: My name is XXXX, I was born on XXXX in the city of XXXX in the province of Telengana (previously Andra Pradesh).

LA: Do you have any siblings?

VP: I have two brothers and a sister. My brothers are XXXX 37 years old, XXXX 33 years old, and my sister is XXXX 25 years old. They are all in XXXX.

LA: What are your parents' names and where do they live?

VP: My father's name is XXXX and my mother's name is XXXX also in XXXX.

LA: What did your relatives do for a living in India?

VP: You used to work in a company, now you are self-employed.

LA: Please explain.

VP: You worked for the "Pepsi" company, now you have opened a grocery store in the city of XXXX. When I was in India I also worked for the company "Pepsi". When asked, I say that my father and brothers opened the business together.

LA: Are you married, do you have children?

VP: I am married and have three children.

LA: Where do your wife and children live?


LA: What's your name?

VP: My wife's name is XXXX, she was born in 1981. I have two sons:

XXXX born in 2009, XXXX born in 2012 and a daughter born in XXXX in 2011. When asked, I state that they do not live alone in the household with my parents.

LA: What does your wife live on?

VP: She is a housewife and I send her money every month.

LA: Does your wife or do you have children from previous marriages?

VP: No.

LA: When did you first enter Austria?

VP: In November 2013.

LA: Have you left Austria since you arrived?

VP: No.

LA: What other relatives do you have in India?

VP: I have aunts and uncles in India.

LA: Are you still in contact with relatives in India?

VP: I talk to my wife on the phone every day.

LA: Please give in chronological order all the addresses at which you were previously - i.e. until you left your home country!

VP: I've always lived at one address, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX in XXXX.

LA: Do you have or did you have an Indian passport or other passport?

VP: I had an RP in India, he's still in India.

LA: How did you leave and enter Germany?

VP: I didn't fly. I came here illegally by land.

LA: Which ethnic group / caste do you belong to?


LA: What is your religion?

VP: I am a Muslim, Sunni.

LA: What training have you completed, especially in your home country?

VP: I attended elementary school for 12 years and graduated with a high school diploma.

LA: Why did you leave your home country and apply for asylum in Austria? Please state all your reasons for fleeing!

VP: I was the chairman of mosque XXXX. I was a member of the Telgu Desam Party. I won a lot of voters for my party. This is what the BJP party learned. They said in their threats that I should compensate for their damage. That is why I left the country.

LA: Have you now stated all of your reasons for fleeing?

VP: Yes.

LA: What do you mean by "replace damage"?

VP: It is customary in India to bribe the population with money before the elections so that they can be elected. The BJP party has also invested a lot of money in the electorate, around 10 million rupees. Even though the people took the money from them, they voted for my party.

LA: From when to when were you a member of this party?

VP: 2005 to 2013.

LA: What was your position in the party?

VP: The position is called "Ward Member".

LA: What were your duties?

VP: To convince voters to vote for our party.

LA: When was that?

VP: 2013 was the election.

LA: How many times have you been threatened?

VP: 5 times.

LA: Where and how did that happen?

VP: Every time on the street they stopped me and threatened me.

LA: Who exactly, how many people?

VP: 2-4 people, they were from the BJP party. I don't know who exactly.

LA: How did you know the attackers were from the BJP party?

VP: Because they asked me for money.

LA: Where on the street were you attacked?

VP: Once in XXXX on the street and twice at home.

LA: What else?

VP: Otherwise not.

LA: But that's only 3 times.

VP: Every time you saw me alone on the street, you stopped me.

LA: What exactly happened on the street?

VP: They said "we lost because of you give us our money back".

LA: Then?

VP: They always told me until when I should give them back the money and after the last threat I left the country.

LA: When was the last threat?

VP: One month before I leave.

LA: When exactly?

VP: August. October.

LA: Did you report that?

VP: It's all illegal how could I go to the police.

LA: What's illegal?

VP: Pass it.

LA: When you were threatened at home, what happened?

VP: You threatened and hit me. After that, they issued a warning and went out.

LA: Do you know these people?

VP: No.

LA: How do they know where you live?

VP: You may have found out about it from other party members.

LA: What was your family doing when you were beaten up?

VP: SI cried sublime.

LA: Describe that in more detail.

VP: You locked yourself in a room.

LA: Have you tried looking for help elsewhere?

VP: I went to my party but they forbade me to help.

LA: Why?

VP: You used me to your advantage and then you didn't want to help me anymore.

LA: But you said in your initial interview that you are the chairman.

VP: No the chairman of the mosque.

LA: You couldn't get any help at the mosque?

VP: No, they are all poor people, they couldn't help me.

LA: Why didn't you move elsewhere in India?

VP: I don't know anyone there.

LA: Tell me more about your Telgu Desan party.

VP: What should I tell you.

LA: What do you know about it?

VP: It's a political party what can I say about it.

LA: When was it founded, what does it do, who are the members?

VP: I don't know when it was founded, the chairman's name is Danajah Goud.

LA: Do you name any other members, what else do you remember?

VP: I don't know anything else.

LA: If you say you convince people to vote and have been a member for almost 8 years then they will know more.

VP: I am a priest and I only went there at election time and supported the party.

LA: When did the elections take place?

VP: In 2008 and 2013.

LA: How often do you vote?

VP: Every 5 years. When asked, I say the last election was in 2013.

LA: Who won the election?

VP: Our party won.

LA: Where is your party represented?

VP: In the whole province of Andra Pradesh (Telengana).

LA: What is the party doing what is it promoting?

VP: She helps people in need.

LA: Does the party have a party flag?

VP: Yes, a flag with a bicycle and an ax on it. It's yellow.

LA: Who started the party?

VP: N.T. Rama Rao he is Minister of State of Andra Pradesh.

LA: The last election wasn't in 2013.

VP: You have the wrong information.

LA: Have you ever had problems with the authorities in your home country?

VP: No.

LA: Have you ever been politically active? Except what they said?

VP: No.

LA: Have you ever been in custody?

VP: No.

LA: What would you have to fear when you return?

VP: I would have to make good the damage.

LA: Wouldn't it be easier. You would replace the damage and live with your family?

VP: I don't have the money.

LA: How do you make a living in Austria now? Have you ever had a legal job in Austria?

VP: I have a transport company, I deliver mail and parcels.

LA: Do you receive any kind of support in Austria?

VP: No.

LA: Can you present any more evidence or provide any more?

VP: Copy: driver's license, asylum card, e-card, birth certificate, ZMR extract, extract from the trade register, rental agreement.

LA: Were you convicted in Austria?

VP: No.

LA: But you have an entry that you have forged documents.

VP: No, I did not forge any documents, I drove with a copy of my driver's license, which is not allowed.

LA: Do you have any objection to the fact that, if necessary, further investigations into your submission are carried out in India, also with the involvement of a liaison officer or a lawyer of trust? Under no circumstances will personal data be passed on to the authorities in your home country.

VP: No.

Note: You will now be given the opportunity to inspect the country information sheet for your home country and the sources it contains, which the BFA uses to assess your case, and to comment in writing, if necessary. These sources mainly refer to reports from EU authorities from authorities in EU countries but also authorities from other countries, but also sources from your home country as well as numerous NGOs and embassy reports, which can also be viewed in detail.

VP: No.

LA: Do you have family members in Austria?

VP: No.

LA: Do you live with someone in a family community or in a family-like community? If so, describe this community!

VP: No.

LA: What do your friends and acquaintances look like in Austria? Who are you in contact with, who do you associate with?

VP: I have no friends.

LA: How do you spend your free time in Austria?

VP: I work.

LA: What languages ​​do you speak?

VP: English, Hindi and Urdu.

LA: Did you complete any other courses or training in Austria?

VP: I attended an A1 German course.

LA: Are or have you been active in associations or organizations in Austria or do you take part in social or cultural life in Austria in some other way?

VP: No.

LA: Have you left India before you came to Austria?

VP: No.

LA: Did you have the opportunity to bring everything up?

VP: Yes.

LA: Did you understand the interpreter?

VP: Yes.


With the contested decision of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum, the complainant's application for international protection in accordance with Section 3 (1) i. V. m. § 2 Abs. 1 Z. 13 AsylG regarding the granting of the status of the person entitled to asylum (point I.) and according to § 8 Abs. V. m. § 2 Abs. 1 Z. 13 AsylG with regard to the granting of the status of beneficiary of subsidiary protection in relation to the country of origin India (point II.) Rejected, a residence title not issued for reasons worthy of consideration according to §§ 57 and 55 AsylG, according to § 10 Abs. 1 Z. 3 AsylG i. V. m. § 9 BFA-VG issued a return decision against the complainant in accordance with § 52 Paragraph 2 Z. 2 FPG and established that his deportation to India is permissible according to § 46 FPG (point III.) And in accordance with § 55 Paragraphs 1 to 3 FPG, the deadline for voluntary departure is 14 days after the return decision becomes final (point IV.).

In order to provide evidence, he said to the BFA that the information provided by the complainant was very vague and lacking in detail. Concrete details should have been asked again and again and he did not know how to give meaningful answers to crucial questions. It is not the job of the authorities to inquire about such details by asking, rather it is in line with the experience of the authorities that people who have actually experienced a relevant incident are willing of their own free will to put a large number of details of every escape story on the record without the consenting party having to keep asking questions and asking the asylum seeker to tell the specific details of his or her escape story or to describe it, including his fears and feelings.

The complainant alleged that the opponents had expressed him in their threats that the complainant should compensate for the "damage" incurred. When asked what he was trying to express, he said that it was customary in India to bribe voters before an election. The BJT would have paid the people, but they would still have voted for his party. In this statement alone, it was very vague. It is not understandable how the BJP should have controlled which voter the TDP. have chosen. Today he stated that he had been a member of the TDP for a good eight years. However, he was almost completely clueless when asked for details. Although he correctly stated that he was the party of N.T. Rama Rao was founded, beyond that he could not provide any further details. N.T. Rama Rao is a well-known actor and director in southern India and a famous representative of Telugian culture, which is why it would not be uncommon to know him, especially since the complainant stated that he came from a federal state where the majority of the population belonged to the Telugian culture . This information alone was not enough to support his claims. He had given false information with regard to the party flag in the TDP, and he was also unable to state when this party was founded. He also did not know who was in the management position. According to Pedar, he meant that "DANAJHGUTGOUD" would be the chairman, and he was unable to name any other members. When asked what else he knew, he said it was a political party, otherwise he wouldn't know anything. There was no logic in claiming that he had been a member of this party from 2005 until his departure and that he then had such poor knowledge about it. He was also not able to describe his position in the TDP precisely. He only stated that he was a "Ward Member". He was supposed to convince voters to vote for the party. In what way he was able to do that without being aware of party politics is incomprehensible.

He had increased his arguments by claiming to have been attacked five times. However, he was unable to convince the authority of this because he did not provide any details. He would have been stopped and threatened every time on the street. He was therefore dealt with two to four people at the BJP. This description was also vague and he said in contradiction that immediately afterwards, he was attacked once on the street in XXXX and twice in his home. When asked what exactly should have happened, he said that the alleged attackers had asked for money from him. How did he know that they were members of the BJP, he explained that they had asked for money. He did not file a complaint and did not seek help from a higher authority. When asked when he was last threatened, he said a month before leaving in August and then corrected it for October, as otherwise his data would not have been the same. This also indicates that his submission is a conceptual construct.The reason why he did not settle elsewhere in India was explained by the fact that he did not know anyone outside of his home town. However, he was able to leave India and make a living in a foreign country without knowing the local language. It can be assumed that he would have succeeded in doing this in another state in India. His statements regarding his escape allegations were contradicting and vague. There is no registration system in his home country, as is evident from the LIB allowances in India, so that in any case he has the option of moving to another location in his country of origin in order to avoid his alleged problems. The fact that one should look for and find him in all of India is, as mentioned, contradicting the general situation described in the LIB and therefore not credible from the point of view of the authority.

His religious and ethnic group affiliation within the scope of the official examination did not result in any risk of systematic, nationwide, state-tolerated asylum-related persecution.

From a legal point of view, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum essentially stated in relation to point I. that all the statements made by the complainant in the course of his proceedings, as the above statements clearly show, were to be found to be implausible. It is one of the essential requirements of the Asylum Act that the applicant provide credible information.

In any case, the complainant was not in a position to live up to the law's claim to credibility, which is why in his case it was by no means possible to grant the status of asylum seeker. In India there is not such an extreme risk situation that everyone who returns there is exposed to a risk.

Regarding point II., The Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum legally stated that, as already discussed in the legal assessment of point I., no credible current threat to his person could be inferred from the complainant's submissions. In his case, it was not evident that he would be exposed to inhuman treatment if he returned.

Such a situation cannot be derived from the general situation in his home country alone. In addition, a domestic alternative to escape is open to him. In view of the fact that the complainant was a healthy, young person, it could be expected that he would build up an existence in his home country. With regard to his living conditions and the question of a job opportunity, reference should be made to the explanations in the previous part, from which it clearly emerges that a completely hopeless situation is not to be expected in his case.

On point III. the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum legally stated that the complainant had no relatives in Austria. There is therefore no interference with his family life.

No starting points emerged in the proceedings that would justify the presumption of a special integration of his person in Austria, especially since he neither speaks German nor has private contacts that could have tied him to Austria. His only short stay in the Austrian federal territory speaks against such a thing. On the other hand, there is the public interest in an orderly enforcement of the aliens' affairs, which he had contradicted with the illegal entry. Based on this overall weighing of interests and taking into account all known circumstances, it emerged that a return decision was justified. Taking into account all known facts, no indications could have been found which would allow the conclusion that his return decision would interfere in an inadmissible manner within the meaning of Art. 8 (2) ECHR with his right to the protection of family and private life, especially since the The complainant had appeared under criminal law. The issuance of a residence title in accordance with Section 55 AsylG was therefore out of the question. The Federal Office must discuss the result of the ex officio examination of the issue of a residence title in accordance with Sections 55 and 57 AsylG in the decision concluding the procedure in accordance with Section 58 (3) AsylG.

Since he is not granted a residence permit for reasons worthy of consideration, this decision must be combined with a return decision in accordance with Section 10 (1) AsylG. Pursuant to Section 52 (9) FPG, the Federal Office must simultaneously determine with a return decision that a deportation of a third-country national to one or more specific states is permissible according to Section 46 FPG, unless this is not possible for reasons for which the third-country national is responsible be. Foreigners against whom a return decision, an order to leave the country or a residence ban can be enforced should be prevented from leaving (deportation) by the public security service on behalf of the Federal Office in accordance with Section 46 (1) FPG, if the monitoring of the departure is for reasons public order or security seems necessary, they have not complied with their obligation to leave the country in a timely manner or this is to be feared due to certain facts or the alien has returned to the federal territory contrary to an entry or residence ban. With this decision, a return decision was issued against the complainant. The deportation of foreigners to a state is inadmissible according to Section 50 (1) FPG if this would violate Art. 2 or 3 ECHR or Protocol No. 6 or 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the abolition of the death penalty or for as a civil person, he or she faces a serious threat to life or integrity as a result of indiscriminate violence in the context of an international or domestic conflict. Under point II. It was examined in detail and finally it was determined that such a danger did not threaten him. According to Section 50 (2) FPG, deportation would also be inadmissible if the alien had refugee status. This was also denied with regard to his person. Finally, Section 50 (3) FPG stipulates the inadmissibility of deportation in the event that the deportation is contrary to the recommendation of a provisional measure by the European Court of Human Rights. Such a recommendation does not exist for India. It should therefore be stated that if the return decision can be enforced and if the conditions specified in Section 46 (1) 1-4 FPG are met, his deportation to India is permissible.

The Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum stated that, according to § 55 FPG, a return decision according to § 52 FPG would also set a deadline for voluntary departure. The period for voluntary departure is 14 days from the legal force of the decision, unless it is determined in the context of a weighing to be carried out by the Federal Office that special circumstances that the third-country national must take into account when regulating his personal circumstances, the reasons for issuing the Decision to return would prevail. In his case, such reasons could not have been established. This means that he is obliged to leave the country voluntarily within 14 days of this return decision becoming final.

The authorized representative of the complainant lodged a complaint against this decision in due time, essentially making the following submissions:

The present decision is being contested in its entirety because of the wrong decision and the inadequate conduct of the procedure.

The complainant is from India. He applied for asylum in Austria on November 6, 2013. The authority in question failed to deal with the state determinations in connection with the complainant's submissions. The complainant was a member of a Muslim party, chaired a mosque and was therefore exposed to a threatening situation in his country of origin. Corruption in the judiciary and the police force is widespread, leaving citizens with deficits in law enforcement. The human rights situation in India is bad and religious minorities are systematically discriminated against. The security forces are particularly partial when there is tension between Hindus and Muslims. The persons threatening the complainant belonged to the BJP, which is a Hindu nationalist party. Legislation in several states forbids religious conversion and missionaries are persecuted. As a board member of a mosque, the complainant was per se missionary i. d. S. active. Social violence based on religious affiliation is one of the most important human rights problems, and in 2014 there were repeated abuse and killings. Police and law enforcement officials did not intervene or intervened only with caution when members of the religious majority population committed violent acts against minorities. Since the assessment of the evidence of the decision did not take these findings into account, the assessment of the evidence does not meet the requirements of a constitutional procedure. The complainant was threatened because of his religious and political activities. The members of the BJP could have assigned the complainant to the campaigning party. The complainant had not increased his submissions, his reluctance was based on years of distrust of the authorities. Because the BJP is active all over India and the findings on the lack of the reporting obligation are not adequately justified, the complainant has no domestic alternative for flight. A return to the home parish is in any case excluded, because the members of the BJP would in any case learn of the complainant's return. In the complaint, the complainant requests that an oral complaint hearing be carried out, in accordance with Art. 130 para. 4 B-VG and Section 20 para to grant the status of beneficiary of subsidiary protection, possibly to issue a residence permit for reasons particularly worthy of consideration, to remedy the return decision and to establish that deportation to India is not permissible as well as to annul the contested decision according to § 28 para. 3 VwGVG with a resolution and refer the matter back to the authority concerned for a new decision to be issued.

II. The Federal Administrative Court has considered:

1. Findings:

The complainant is a national of India. The complainant is from Telengana Province, XXXX. He attended elementary school for twelve years and passed his matriculation examination in India. His wife and three children are still in India and he has regular telephone contact with his wife. His parents and siblings are also staying in India.

The complainant entered the federal territory in October 2013 and filed this application for international protection on November 6, 2013. The complainant has no family members in Germany, speaks little German and has only attended a German course so far. He is self-employed and has his own freight transport company.

On the situation in India:

Political situation

With over 1.2 billion people, India is the most populous democratic state in the world (CIA Factbook October 28, 2015; see AA April 24, 2015). With its many languages, India is particularly diverse, which is also reflected in its federal political system, in which power is shared by the central government and the states (BBC October 28, 2015). Since June 2nd, 2014 India has 29 federal states and seven Union states (CIA Factbook October 28th, 2015; cf.AA 10.2015a). According to the constitution, it is a secular, democratic and federal republic. The capital New Delhi has a special legal status. The central government has significantly greater powers than the state governments and, in the event of internal problems, can place a state under direct central government administration for a limited period of time (AA 10.2015a).

After independence from Great Britain (1947), India enforced the principle of the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The decisions of the state administration (bureaucracy, military, police) are also controlled by the country's free press, which is published not only in the national official languages ​​Hindi and English, but also in many of the regional languages. India also has a lively civil society that is involved in shaping politics with a variety of initiatives (AA 10.2015a). President Pranab Kumar Mukherjee has been Indian head of state since July 2012 (AA 10.2015a). The President is the head of state and is elected by an electoral committee, while the Prime Minister is the head of government (USDOS 6/25/2015). The office primarily entails representative tasks, but in the event of a crisis the president has far-reaching powers (AA 10.2015a). The most important office within the executive branch is held by the Prime Minister, who has been called Narendra Modi since May 26, 2014 (GIZ 11/2015).

In accordance with the constitution, the states and union territories have a high degree of autonomy and have primary responsibility for law and order (USDOS 6/25/2015). The legislature consists of a People's Chamber (Lok Sabha) and a Chamber of States (Rajya Sabha). There are also state-level parliaments. The Supreme Court in New Delhi is at the head of the judiciary (GIZ 11.2015; cf. AA 24.4.2015).

The separation of powers between parliament and government follows the British model. In India there is a constitutionally guaranteed, independent judiciary with three levels of authority (AA April 24, 2015).

In the last few decades India experienced an enormous economic boom, which led to the formation of a new middle class. But India's age-old caste system, ailing rural infrastructure, severe environmental pollution and religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims continue to pose major problems for the country (FAZ May 16, 2014). The new government, which has been in office since 2014, not only wants to continue the market economy course, but also intensify it by removing bureaucratic obstacles and reducing protectionism. Foreign investors should become more active (GIZ 8/2015).

Elections 2014:

The last nationwide elections took place in April / May 2014 (AA April 24, 2015). The election for the 16th Lok Sabha, the Indian lower house, began on 7.4.2014 (GIZ 11.2015). 814 million voters were asked to cast their votes at more than 930,000 ballot boxes and 1.5 million electronic voting machines (Eurasisches Magazin May 24, 2014), including around 120 million first-time voters (GIZ 11.2015).

Three major party alliances faced each other in the election:

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) under the leadership of the Congress Party, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) under the leadership of the BJP and the so-called Third Front, which consists of eleven regional and left-wing parties. The performance of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which emerged from part of the India Against Corruption movement, was attended with particular interest. The AAP managed to win 28 out of 70 seats in the 2013 election in Delhi. The result in 2014: The AAP only won four seats across the country (GIZ 11.2015; see FAZ 16.5.2014).

The election winner was officially announced on May 16, 2014: Narendra Modi from the opposition party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which won an absolute majority with 282 of 543 seats. On the other hand, heavy losses for the coalition led by the Congress under Manmohan Singh, which has been in power since 2004. Sonia Gandhi and son Rahul are now moving to the opposition bench (Eurasisches Magazin May 24, 2014; see FAZ May 16, 2014, GIZ 11.2015). The new head of government is the previous Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. This also nourishes the fear of a flare-up of communalism (GIZ 11.2015).



AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India


AA - Foreign Office (10.2015a): India, domestic policy, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_AC539C62A8F3AE6159C84F7909652AC5/DE/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/Indien/innenpolitik_node.html, accessed November 9, 2015


BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (28.10.2015): India country profile - Overview,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384, accessed on November 9, 2015


CIA - Central Intelligence Agency (October 28, 2015): The World Factbook



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html, accessed on November 9, 2015


Eurasisches Magazin (May 24, 2014): Where is the greatest democracy on earth going?

http://www.eurasischesmagazin.de/artikel/Indien-nach-den-Wahlen-eine-Analyse/14017, accessed on November 9, 2015


FAZ - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (May 16, 2014): Modi is the man of the hour,

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/fruehaufsteher/wahlentscheid-in-lösungen-modi-ist-der-mann-der-stunde-12941572.html, accessed on November 9, 2015


GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmbH (11.2015): India,

http://liportal.giz.de/haben/geschichte-staat.html, accessed on November 9, 2015


GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmBH (8/2015): India, Economic System and Economic Policy, http://liportal.giz.de/india/wirtschaft-entwicklung/, accessed November 9, 2015


USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

Security situation

India is rich in tensions across ethnic groups, religions, castes and life perspectives. Contradictions, contradictions or conflicts discharge in the social arenas and are taken up, processed and in some cases instrumentalized by politics (GIZ 11.2015). Bloody terrorist attacks have repeatedly claimed deaths in India's megacities in the past few years (Eurasisches Magazin, May 24, 2014). The tensions in the north-east of the country continue, as does the dispute with the Naxalites (GIZ 11.2015). The state monopoly on the use of force is being called into question in some areas by the activities of the "Naxalites" (AA April 24, 2015).

India faces a number of security problems. There are several left-wing armed groups (Maoists) across the country. After an increase in the activity of insurgent groups between 2003 and 2010, these activities decreased due to internal power struggles, limited support in the tribal communities and effective operations against their leadership by the security forces. In 2013, around 76 of India's more than 600 counties experienced some form of Maoist violence. Insurgent groups from Pakistan have demonstrated their ability to launch attacks (via Indian-administered Kashmir) in central India. Worth mentioning are the December 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament and the Mumbai attacks in July 2006 and November 2008. Pakistani groups are believed to have provided support to Indian terrorist cells in the 2006 attacks. The attacks in 2008 were planned, supported and led from Pakistan. Local rebel groups - both Hindu and Islamist - have been implicated in a series of terrorist attacks on key Indian cities. The security situation in the areas of Kashmir, northeast and especially in Assam is unstable and revolts keep coming back. Another security problem is communal violence between the Hindu majority and the Muslim minority. Organized crime is also a problem in capitals, but not for foreign companies. There are kidnappings with ransom demands, but these are limited to the local population. The poor road safety in the country is a significant problem. The greatest immediate external security threat is Pakistan, especially in relation to the long-standing Kashmiri dispute (IHS- Jane's Sentinel Security 1.7.2014).

The government acts with great severity and rigor against militant groups, who mostly advocate the independence of certain regions and / or adhere to radical views, especially as soon as internal security is seen as endangered. If such groups renounce violence, the government is usually ready to negotiate their demands. Nonviolent independence groups are free to be politically active (AA April 24, 2015). Despite numerous and sometimes dramatic successes by India's security and intelligence agencies, which repeatedly suffer from severe resource problems, the reality is that the security apparatus is still easily vulnerable (South Asia Terrorism Portal October 30, 2015).

Pakistan and India

Relations with our neighbors, Pakistan, who are also nuclear armed, remain complicated. Phases of dialogue and tensions through to armed conflict have replaced one another in the decades since independence (AA 10.2015c). The biggest obstacle to improving relationships is still the cashmere problem (AA 10.2015c). There have already been three wars since 1947, two of them due to the disputed Kashmiri area. Peace talks, which began in 2004, continued despite tensions over the Kashmir region and repeated heavy bomb attacks until the attacks by Islamists in Mumbai in 2008 (BBC October 28, 2015). India accuses Pakistan of at least tolerating infiltration of terrorists on Indian territory, if not promoting it (AA 10.2015c).

The South Asia Terrorism Portal recorded 1,073 deaths from terrorism-related violence for 2011, 803 for 2012, 885 for 2013, 976 for 2014 and 608 for 2015 (until October 25, 2015) [Note : the figures quoted include civilians, security forces and terrorists] (South Asia Terrorism Portal 10/30/2015).

In 2013 there were further serious incidents on the "Line of Control". At a meeting in New York at the end of September 2013, Prime Ministers Singh and Sharif merely agreed to better comply with the ceasefire in the future (GIZ 11.2015). Recently, there have been repeated exchanges of fire between Indian and Pakistani troops on the borderline between the two parts of Kashmir and, according to Indian sources, attempts by extremist fighters to break into Indian territory have been unsuccessful (AA 10.2015c).

No breakthrough has yet been achieved in the mutual attempts to put the bilateral relationship on a permanent political basis (AA 10.2015c). At his inauguration, Modi invited all neighboring heads of state - including Pakistan - to show his commitment to building closer ties in the region (HRW 01/29/2015).



AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India


AA - Foreign Office (10.2015c): India - Foreign Policy, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/DE/Aussenpolitik/Laender/Laenderinfos/Indien/Aussenpolitik_node.html#doc346922bodyText3, accessed November 9, 2015


BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (October 28, 2015): India profile


Overview, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12557384, accessed on November 9, 2015


Eurasisches Magazin (May 24, 2014): Where is the greatest democracy on earth going?

http://www.eurasischesmagazin.de/artikel/Indien-nach-den-Wahlen-eine-Analyse/14017, accessed on November 9, 2015


GIZ - German Society for International Cooperation GmbH (11.2015): India,

http://liportal.giz.de/haben/geschichte-staat.html, accessed on November 9, 2015


HRW - Human Rights Watch (January 29, 2015): World Report 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/295494/430526_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015


IHS - Jane's Sentinel Security (July 1, 2014): Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment - South Asia - executive summary, India


South Asia Terrorism Portal (October 30, 2015): India Assessment - 2014, http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/index.html, accessed November 9, 2015


South Asia Terrorism Portal (October 30, 2015): Data Sheet - India Fatalities: 1994-2015,

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/database/indiafatalities.htm, accessed on November 9, 2015


USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

Legal protection / judicial system

In India there is a constitutionally guaranteed, independent judiciary with three levels of authority (AA April 24, 2015). The law guarantees an independent judiciary, but corruption was widespread in the judiciary (USDOS 6/25/2015).

The courts conduct criminal proceedings with judicial independence. A generally discriminatory criminal prosecution or sentencing practice cannot be established, but the lower levels in particular are not free from corruption. The former Chief Justice Katju had triggered a public controversy with a statement in autumn 2014 when he made corruption among the judges public and in one case also disclosed state influence on the appointment of a judge (AA April 24, 2015).

The judiciary continued to be overburdened and the backlog at the courts led to long delays or the withholding of case law (USDOS June 25, 2015). In August 2013, the Justice Minister announced that there were three positions in the Supreme Court and 275 positions in the high courts. Alarming was also the number of vacancies in the subordinate judiciary, with more than 3,700 positions to be filled. The Justice Minister attributed lengthy delays in the courts to the vacancies (USDOS 02/27/2014). An analysis by the Ministry of Justice revealed a vacancy of 34% of the judges at the higher courts on August 1, 2014 (USDOS June 25, 2015).

The very long duration of the procedure is very problematic. The standard duration of criminal proceedings (from the indictment to the judgment) is several years; in some cases, proceedings take up to ten years. Witness protection is also inadequate. As a result, witnesses often do not testify freely in court because they were bribed or threatened (AA April 24, 2015).

The judiciary is separate from the executive. Judges showed considerable dedication to handling public interest litigation. However, in recent years judges have also opened proceedings for improper conduct in court against activists and journalists who have taken action against corruption in the judiciary or who have questioned judgments. Corruption is reported to be widespread in the lower levels of the judiciary. Many citizens have difficulties enforcing the law through the courts (FH January 28, 2015). The system is backlogged and understaffed. This often leads to prolonged pre-trial detention for many suspects, which often lasts longer than the actual sentence would be (FH January 28, 2015; see FH May 19, 2014). The establishment of various fast-track courts to deal with pending court cases led to the right to a fair trial not being observed in some cases (FH May 19, 2014).

Rule of law guarantees enshrined in the constitution (e.g. the right to a fair trial, Art. 21) are restricted by a number of security laws. These laws were tightened after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008; Among other things, the presumption of innocence was suspended for certain criminal offenses. Particularly in unrest areas, the security forces have extensive powers to combat secessionist and terrorist groups, which are often used excessively (AA April 24, 2015). Pretrial detention takes a long time. Except for offenses threatened by the death penalty, the judge should order a detention review after half of the impending maximum sentence has expired and order a release on bail. However, with such an application, the person concerned accepts that the case will not be pursued for a long time. In the meantime, around 70% of all prisoners are remand prisoners, many because of minor offenses that lack the means to provide bail (AA April 24, 2015).

The criminal law provides for public negotiations, except in proceedings in which the statements may concern state secrets or state security. There is free legal advice for defendants in need, but in practice access to competent advice is often limited. All evidence brought against a defendant must be accessible to him and convictions must be published (USDOS 6/25/2015). The law allows defendants access to relevant government evidence in most civil and criminal cases, but the government reserves the right to withhold information, including in cases it deems sensitive. Defendants have the right to interview witnesses; underprivileged defendants sometimes do not enjoy this right due to a lack of proper legal representation. The court is obliged to issue judgments publicly and there are effective ways of appeal at almost all levels of the judiciary (USDOS 25.6.2015).



AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India


FH - Freedom House (January 28, 2015): Freedom in the World 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/296800/433144_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015


FH - Freedom House (May 19, 2014): Freedom in the World 2014 - India, http://www.refworld.org/docid/5379d1d710.html, accessed on November 9, 2015


USDOS - US Department of State (February 27, 2014): India, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2013 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/270728/400811_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015


USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

Security agencies

The police act on the basis of state police laws (AA April 24, 2015). The Indian Police Service is not a direct law enforcement or law enforcement agency. Rather, it acts as a training and recruiting agency for police officers in the states. With regard to the federal structures, the police are organized decentrally in the individual states. The individual units are organized on a decentralized basis, but in view of a national police law, numerous national criminal laws and the central recruiting office for executives described above, they have a number of things in common. In general, the police are entrusted with prosecuting, preventing and combating crime and maintaining public order, while at the same time exercising partial control over the various secret services (BICC 6.2015). In addition, there are largely paramilitary units subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior (AA April 24, 2015).

The Indian military is subordinate to civil administration and has shown little interest in a political role in the past. The supreme command is incumbent on the president. According to their self-image, the army is the "protector of the nation", but only in a military sense (BICC 6.2015). The military can also be active domestically if this is necessary to maintain internal security (AA April 24, 2015; cf. BICC 6.2015), for example in the fight against armed insurgents, supporting the police and paramilitary units as well as deploying Natural disasters (BICC 6/2015).

In addition to structural deficits, a lack of trust in the reliability of the police arises from frequent reports of human rights violations such as torture and extrajudicial killings and threats that were allegedly perpetrated by the police (BICC 6.2015; see USDOS 25.6.2015; see HRW 29.1 .2015). The police are accused of serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, torture and rape (USDOS 25.6.2015). The police remain overburdened, underpaid and exposed to political pressure. Political demands to identify perpetrators as quickly as possible after terrorist attacks and rape often lead to illegal arrests (USDOS June 25, 2015).

The Special Frontier Force is subordinate to the Prime Minister's Office. The so-called border special forces are an elite unit that is deployed on sensitive sections of the border with China. There are also legal bases for the actions of the secret services, the so-called intelligence bureau (domestic secret service) and the research and analysis wing ("Research and Analysis Wing"). The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is used as the legal basis for the deployment of armed forces - especially land forces - in unrest areas and against terrorists. The AFSPA gives the armed forces extensive powers to use lethal force, make arrests without a warrant, and search without a warrant. In their actions, those involved in the armed forces enjoy broad immunity from prosecution. The AFSPA comes into play after state governments declare their states or only parts of them to be "unrest areas" on the basis of the Disturbed Areas Act. The states of Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura are currently considered unrest areas (AA April 24, 2015 cf. USDOS June 25, 2015).

Terrorist attacks in previous years (December 2010 in Varanasi, July 2011

Mumbai, September 2011 New Delhi and Agra, April 2013 in Bangalore, May 2014 Chennai and December 2014 Bangalore) and in particular the attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 have put the government under pressure. Only a few of the attacks in recent years have been completely cleared up and the reform projects announced in response to these incidents to improve the Indian security architecture have not been implemented consistently. The "Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act" (UAPA) has been tightened. The changes include an expanded definition of terrorism and, in cases related to terrorism, the option of extending pre-trial detention without charge from 90 to 180 days and simplified rules for proving the perpetrator of a defendant (which in fact come close to reversing the burden of proof) (AA April 24, 2015) .

There were continued reports of police rape of detainees.Some rape victims were afraid to come forward and report the crime because of the threat of social stigma and possible retaliation, especially if the perpetrator was a police officer or other official. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has the mandate to investigate rape cases involving police officers. The NHRC has the legal authority to request information about members of the military and paramilitary forces, but has no client to investigate cases in which these units are involved (USDOS 6/25/2015).



AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India


BICC - Bonn International Center for Conversion (6/2015):

Information service - security, armaments and development in recipient countries of German arms exports: Country information India,

http://ruestungsexport.info/uploads/pdf/countries/20157/haben.pdf, accessed on November 9, 2015


HRW - Human Rights Watch (January 29, 2015): World Report 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/295494/430526_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015


USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015

Torture and Inhuman Treatment

Torture is banned in India; Statements obtained as a result of torture are not permitted for use in court (AA April 24, 2015; see USDOS June 25, 2015). The law thus bans torture, but there are reports from NGOs that such practices are widespread, especially in conflict areas (USDOS 6/25/2015). The state persecutes torture. However, security forces repeatedly use torture during interrogation. Torture by police officers, the army and paramilitary units often goes unpunished because the victims do not know their rights, are intimidated or do not survive the torture (AA April 24, 2015). Promised police reforms are dragging on (HRW 01/29/2015).

According to human rights experts, the government continued to try to arrest people and to blame them for violations of the - repealed - Act on Combating Terrorism, Terrorist Acts and Destructive Acts. This law stated that confessions made in front of a police officer would be treated as admissible evidence in court (USDOS 6/25/2015).

India signed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1997, but has not yet ratified it (AA April 24, 2015). In addition, no changes to national legislation necessary for ratification have been introduced (BICC 6.2015). A national draft law to combat torture, which is a national requirement for ratification of the UN Anti-Torture Convention, was not passed by parliament (AA April 24, 2015).

According to reliable information from the "Asia Pacific Human Rights Network", torture is systematically used by the police as a means of questioning and extorting money or as a summary punishment of alleged perpetrators (AA April 24, 2015; cf. USDOS June 25, 2015); According to reliable assessments by NGOs, deaths of prisoners are related to the use of torture. Systematic torture continues to occur in interrogation centers in Jammu and Kashmir, according to credible, confidential estimates by the ICRC. Torture is also used in other parts of the country, especially in socially disadvantaged and populous countries such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. According to reliable information from Amnesty International, torture and ill-treatment in prisons are widespread (AA April 24, 2015).

The human rights situation in India varies greatly from region to region. While civil and human rights are largely respected by the government, the situation in regions where there are internal conflicts is sometimes very bad. This applies in particular to Jammu and Kashmir and the north-east of the country (BICC 6.2015; cf. AA April 24, 2015). The security forces, but also the non-state armed groups, be they separatist organizations or militias loyal to the government, are accused of massive human rights violations. The military and paramilitary units are charged with kidnapping, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial executions. There are fears that the new, draconian anti-terrorist legislation will worsen the human rights situation and that these laws will be misused against political opponents (BICC 6/2015). Socially weak classes and women are particularly at risk (AA April 24, 2015).

Individuals - or NGOs on behalf of individuals or groups - can submit public interest litigation petitions to any high court or directly to the Supreme Court to seek legal redress for public violations. These complaints can be a violation of government duties by a government employee or a violation of constitutional regulations. NGOs very much appreciate these motions in order to hold government officials accountable to civil society organizations for corruption and partiality (USDOS June 25, 2015).



AA - Federal Foreign Office (April 24, 2015): Report on the asylum and deportation-relevant situation in the Republic of India


BICC - Bonn International Center for Conversion (6/2015):

Information service - security, armaments and development in recipient countries of German arms exports: Country information India,

http://ruestungsexport.info/uploads/pdf/countries/20157/haben.pdf, accessed on November 9, 2015


HRW - Human Rights Watch (January 29, 2015): World Report 2015 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/295494/430526_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015


USDOS - US Department of State (June 25, 2015): Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2014 - India, http://www.ecoi.net/local_link/306292/443589_de.html, accessed November 9, 2015


Corruption is widespread (USDOS 6/25/2015). India appears in the 2014 corruption index of Transparency International on place 85 (note: 2013 place 94) out of a total of 175 countries (TI 12.2014).

The fight against corruption was intensified through domestic and international pressure. Although politicians and officials are caught taking bribes every year, there are numerous cases of corruption that go unnoticed and go unpunished. National and international pressure has led to legal measures to combat corruption. After years of large-scale social mobilization by activists, Parliament passed the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas Law, which the President signed in January 2014. The law creates independent state bodies to which complaints about corrupt officials or politicians can be directed and which are empowered to investigate the complaints and prosecute convictions in court. At the federal level, this facility is called Lok Pal, and the law requires states to set up their own anti-corruption institutions, known as Lokayuktas, within a year. However, questions about enforcement remain open. Since 2008 at least 29 "right to information activists" have been murdered and 164 have been attacked or harassed (FH January 28, 2015).

The law provides penalties for corruption in the public service, but the government has not effectively implemented the law and, in practice, public officials often get away with corrupt practices. Corruption is present at all levels of government. The CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) registered 583 cases of corruption during the investigation period [note: January to November]. The CBI operates a toll-free hotline - to record complaints - and a web portal to publish information (USDOS 25.6.2015).

NGOs report that bribes are commonly used to expedite legal proceedings, for police protection, for school enrollment, or access to water supplies or grants. Civil society organizations drew public attention to the issue of corruption throughout 2014 through public demonstrations and websites (USDOS June 25, 2015).

The government appointed Chief Vigilance Offifers to investigate public complaints and grievances in banking, insurance and other sectors serviced by private, public and corporate bodies. Parliament passed a law on ombudsman organization, Lok Pal, in December to investigate allegations of government corruption (USDOS 6/25/2015).

The lower areas of the judiciary are particularly affected by corruption and most citizens have difficulties obtaining justice through the courts (FH January 28, 2015). Many government-sponsored programs for poverty reduction and job creation suffered from corruption. (USDOS 6/25/2015).

A new helpline to help people deal with government bribery claims in the capital, Delhi, received more than 4,000 calls in the first few hours of its existence. The Anti-Corruption Helpline is an initiative of the new Aam Aadami (Common Citizens) Party (AAP), which governs Delhi with the support of the Congress Party. This helpline is available 14 hours a day and is intended to help fight everyday corruption (BBC 9/1/2014).