When the bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit made the dramatic pronouncement on July 8 that, “if members of our armed forces are deployed and employed to kill citizens of our country on mere allegation or suspicion that they are “enemy,” not only the rule of law but our democracy would be in grave danger,” they were stating what people of the North East have been echoing for decades.
The world still remembers the protest by naked women in Imphal against the brutal rape and killing of Thangjam Manorama, a young woman who was alleged to have been a member of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), an insurgent outfit based in Manipur. Manorama was picked up by the 17 Assam Rifles on July 10, 2004 and a day later, her bullet ridden body was found in a nearby field. Such inhuman brutalities have become part and parcel of life in the insurgency afflicted states of the North East.
AFSPA Inspired by Rowlatt Act, 1919
An enquiry by retired Supreme Court judge Santosh Hegde in 2013, in response to the persistent demands of human rights defenders to inquire into 1,528 cases of extrajudicial killings in Manipur since 1979, found at least six of them to be cases of fake encounters.
Details of the brutalities as found by the Santosh Hegde Commission are bone-chilling. They reveal a pattern where security forces, including the Manipur Police, indulge in the gravest of human rights violation under the cover of AFSPA.
Now that the Supreme Court has given its verdict, denouncing the use of arbitrary force by the security personnel on “their own people”, it is time for this country to review the use of the armed forces to quell internal conflicts and disturbances. The AFSPA has a strong colonial flavour as it seems to be inspired by the Rowlatt Act which was enacted following the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919.
The Act gave unfettered powers to the police to search a place and arrest any person they disapproved of without warrant. According to Wikipedia, a well known description of the Bill at that time was, “no pleas, no lawyer, no appeal.” The purpose of the act was to curb the growing nationalist upsurge in the country. The AFSPA is but a modification of the Rowlatt Act.
Feeling of Alienation
That India should continue with an Act enacted by a colonial power to fight Indian nationalists, sixty-nine years after independence, shows an utter lack of imagination on the part of its policy makers. Perhaps the fact that AFSPA is only applied in the North Eastern states and Kashmir somehow dulls the conscience of this nation.
Following the bloody attack by the Naxals on CRPF jawans in 2012, when former Army Chief General VK Singh was asked if the army would be deployed to tackle the rebels, he had categorically stated that the Army should not be deployed to fight Naxalism, as the main objective of the armed forces is to fight the external enemy and not “our own people.” VK Singh went on to say that Naxalism is a result of economic disparities. This writer had questioned Singh’s statement then and wondered if the people of the North East and J&K are ‘not’ India’s own people.
What if AFSPA Was in Force in Other States?
This country is driven by politics and populism. Since AFSPA is not applied across the country even when some states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are wracked by internal and bloody communal conflicts, it remains a problem of only the North East and J&K. Both these regions are peripheral to the politics of Delhi.
Had AFSPA been applied elsewhere in this country, particularly those states with a larger representation in Parliament, the pressure on the Central Government to revoke the Act would have been so great that it would have long since been withdrawn. But the North East and Kashmir does not have a strong enough lobby in Delhi and only muted voices in parliament.
Should AFSPA Be Repealed?
- Supreme Court has
reiterated what the Santosh Hedge report said in 2013, that
there is a pattern in AFSPA-related human rights violation cases.
- AFSPA, similar to the Rowlatt Act 1919, which was enforced in the
aftermath of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, gives unbridled powers to security personnel.
- Since AFSPA is in force in states with low
representation in Parliament, this explains why the Centre has comfortably
chosen to sidestep the issue.
- An alternative to AFSPA may have been found
if a similar law was imposed in UP and Bihar where caste-based incidents of violence are common.
- It is ironic that many chief
ministers belonging to the North East have also relied on AFSPA to maintain law
and order in their respective states.
Blame Lies with State Governments As Well
However, it might not be fair to pin the entire blame on the Centre. State Governments like those in Assam, Manipur, Nagaland have been ambivalent on this issue. The only chief minister who dared to revoke this Act, stating that insurgency has been brought under control by the state police, is Manik Sarkar of Tripura.
The former Assam chief minister Tarun Gogoi was in support of AFSPA, as was the Manipur Chief Minister, Ibobi Singh! These chief ministers have learnt to depend on centrally deployed armed forces to keep the peace in their states. What is curious is that the people of Manipur have repeatedly elected Ibobi Singh despite his overt support for AFSPA. Politics indeed is an oxymoron.
It is time now for this country to recast its security architecture. How long can India use its armed forces (which are trained to decimate the external enemy), to fight its own people instead? Counter-insurgency is a mind game, requiring a healing touch for those who suffer a deep sense of alienation and injustice under the present system. Will the Modi Government have the courage of conviction to revisit the AFSPA and repeal this colonial law?
(The writer is the Editor of The Shillong Times and former member of NSAB)
Also read:
The Rhetoric, Reality, Needs and Concerns Around AFSPA
Rampaging Judicial Activism: Meghalaya High Court Demands AFSPA
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)