|
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (Assam and Manipur) 1958 – An Assessment
By Lt. Col (retd) H Bhuban Singh
To withdraw or not to withdraw Armed Forces Special Powers Act (Assam and Manipur) 1958, is the hot topic of discussion in the political and intellectual circles of Manipur today. The Act was introduced to Manipur in 1980. Now, with the experience of almost quarter of a century, we can now assess whether the Act was able to help the state government solve the insurgency problem, or at least lower the level of insurgency.
The theme, on which AFSPA was passed by the Indian Parliament in 1958, seems to be ‘strike first and nip insurgency in the bud’. When the Indian Army and other paramilitary forces were deployed in early 1950s, in the then Naga Hills district of Assam, now Nagaland, in order to counter armed Naga separatist movement, it was experienced that the security forces were always at the receiving end. The Army and SF could not open fire, until they were fired upon. This was passive reaction, whereas the requirement was a pro-active reaction. AFSPA enabled the SF to strike first. The Act naturally gave very wide powers to SF and this was understandable in a very hostile and war-like situation as was prevailing then.
Under this Act, any non-commissioned officer, say a Naik or Havaldar can issue orders of ‘shoot to kill’. SF can apprehend anyone under suspicion from anywhere, even from the roadside. They can do any midnight known on any door. They can attack any hideout and kill. If personnel of SF are required to appear before any probe committee - judicial or magisterial - prior concurrence of the respective ministries, like the ministry of defense or the ministry of home
affairs are required. The predominant objection to AFSPA is excesses committed by SF and the concomitant violation of human rights. In order to assess if SF had been fair, just and tough, or had been brutal, inhuman and barbaric, let us do some case studies.
On the afternoon of 14 March 1984, there was a local volleyball final match near Heirangoithong Bridge. People were in a relaxed mood, eager to enjoy the nice afternoon sunshine and also watch an entertaining event. CRPF jawans from the Heirangoithong bridge outpost also got enthused. Some constables came out to enjoy the game and got mixed with the crowd. A few insurgents realized this golden opportunity of snatching some rifles from the constables. They tried and a scuffle ensued. In the melee, a few shots were fired. A sentry on the watch
tower of the outpost with Light Machine Gun, LMG, saw what was happening. He fired a few bursts. 14 people lay dead and many were injured. It is relevant to point out that when SF goes out in aid to civil power, they are to use minimum force, in fact, bare minimum, because they are fighting their own countrymen.
In 1995, there was a posse of CRPF jawans in RIMS hospital, guarding a sick CRPF officer undergoing medical treatment. A guard jawan, who was doing his morning ablutions in the Sulabh Complex bathrooms, was shot dead by an insurgent, who perhaps ran away. By the side of the complex bathrooms, there was a parking place for auto rickshaws. The berserk jawans let go their anger on the auto rickshaw drivers. Nine got killed on the spot. That was deliberate revenge killing.
Recently, in 1999, a three vehicle borne patrolling party of Assam Rifles was attacked by explosion of an improvised explosive device, IED, at Malom. In the crossfire, nine innocent civilian bystanders at Malom bus stand, including women and children, were killed. Sharmila Devi went on an indefinite hunger strike, demanding immediate withdrawal of AFSPA. On her crossing thirty days of fasting even the government of India got panicky, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee sent Union minister Bijoya Chakravorty as his personal emissary to pacify Sharmila. Now almost three years have passed nothing has happened. We have forgotten the Prime Minister, Bijoya Chakravorty, Sharmila and the Malom incident itself.
There are so many incidents, so many happenings that I don’t have to retell each and every case and open up old wounds. In fact, the public of Manipur seems to be living on borrowed times. No one is certain before he sets out his foot from his home that he will return safe, because he can get caught in a crossfire of ambush and counter-ambush.
Another serious offence committed by SF is non-issuance of arrest memos, despite directions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. I have pointed this out to the Union ministry of home affairs several times, without success. There is no doubt that SF is flouting Supreme Court rulings with impunity.
During the famous October, 1917 Bolshevik Revolution against Czar Nicholas, a Communist leader lamented that the people had all the law in their favor but had no power, whereas the Czar had not law on his side, but had all the powers. It seems, in Manipur, the people have law and Supreme Court on their side, whereas SF had power in their favor. SF is law-proof!!!
The result was the missing case of Bijoy. When Bijoy was reported to be missing, the Army said, they did not pick him up. There was no Arrest Memo. However, the public was not convinced, as Bijoy was picked up by well-armed Hindi speaking personnel. The public and Meira Paibis agitated a lot, but could do nothing, so was the State government. It seems Bijoy was a test case. Very soon after, Boyai got lost, followed by Sanamacha etc.
Any democratic government exists for doing good to the people and serves the interests of the people. When the very existence of the State and the people are threatened, stringent laws are required. POTA which is more stringent than AFSPA was passed recently in the Parliament, considering the threat perception to the Indian State and the Indian nation. Hard times need hard laws and people are willing to bear and if necessary, suffer.
So the moot point is - are the people of Manipur happy with AFSPA and willing to suffer the inconveniences caused by AFSPA? Is AFSPA serving the interests of the people of Manipur? Are the SF seen as our protector or as our tormentor? When you impose a stringent law, you have to carefully weight the possibility of misuse of power; stringent law requires strict discipline and rigorous monitoring.
As far as I know, all the different constituents of SF that is, Army, Assam Rifles, CRPF, BSF, IRB, MR and civil police function in near water-tight compartments. Nobody knows who is doing what. In short, there is no authority to coordinate counter-insurgency operations in Manipur. When General Sir Gerald Templer solved the Communist uprising in Malaya, he was British High Commissioner (Head of civil administration) and Military Commander also. Civil administration and military operation converged on a single point. That is the place where the buck must stop. In Manipur, we are not sure as to who is responsible to fight insurgency. Technically, the State government must be responsible as law and order is a State subject. Therefore, the State government will be blamed if anything goes wrong. At the same time, it seems helpless to control excesses perpetrated by SF. The government is thus caught in a no-win situation. In this confused atmosphere, the public had enough of AFSPA.
Therefore, unless the State government can asset, I recommend withdrawal of AFSPA.
(Author’s note: The views expressed above are the personal opinion of the author, without political connection.)
(Courtesy: The Imphal Free Press)
|
Welcome! 
International
Features
