"Manipur should not
be abandoned to the periphery of national
consciousness", writes Radhabinod Koijam
Manipur is burning today after the alleged
rape and murder of 32-year old Thangjam
Manorama Devi by personnel of the 17th Assam
Rifles. Manorama was picked up by the
security forces on 11 July from her
residence at Bamon Kampu, Imphal. The arrest
memo given to her family members did not
mention the seizure of any incriminating
articles from her residence. Few hours
later, her dead body was found abandoned in
a field about 4 km from her house with
multiple bullet marks. Her private parts
bore bullet injuries, and her thighs and
breast bore bruises. It was suspected from
the nature and location of the injuries that
Manorama was raped, tortured and killed.
According to Army officials, Manorama
belonged to the banned People Liberation
Army (PLA) and was an expert in Improvised
Explosive Devices (IED). This may or may not
be true. Even if this was true, do security
forces have the right to torture, molest,
rape and kill a person in their custody
without trial according to the law? Is this
the Indian version of Iraq's Abu Ghiarib?
The problem of insurgency has been there for
many years now. The AFSPA 1958 was imposed
in Northeast India to contain insurgency.
Though it is a short one-page act, it gives
wide discretionary powers to the armed
forces. Even though the Act has been in
operation in the Northeast for nearly 46
years, the public perception is that the Act
has not been useful in containing
insurgency. More-over, the Act has often
been misused and violation of the law has
been the norm. Security forces invariably
tend to violate the law with an air of
arrogance and the Supreme Court guidelines
are also not followed.
Section 4 and 6 of the Act are the most
draconian provisions. Under Section 4, any
Commissioned officer, Warrant Officer,
Non-Commissioned officer, or any other
person of equivalent rank in the armed
forces may fire upon or use force, even
cause death. Section 6 prohibits any
prosecution suit or other legal proceedings
except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government, against any person in
respect of anything done or purported to be
done in the exercise of powers conferred by
this Act. Sanction for prosecution is
generally not granted by the Central
Government. These provisions have allowed
the security forces to abuse power which
have led to human rights violations in the
State.
The excesses committed under the Act have
led to widespread resentment among the
people which is also pushing some towards
insurgency. The Act promotes a ‘Balance of
Fear’ (creation of fear of security forces
vis-à-vis fear of insurgent) which is not
the right approach to counter insurgency.
The Act proved ineffective in Nagaland as
well. This is evident from the fact that the
Government of lndia is today in a dialogue
mode and is talking to Naga insurgent
groups. Therefore, there is a growing demand
that the Act be withdrawn from the
Northeast.
The Central Government, however, feels that
the Act is necessary for containing
insurgency and is against its full or
partial withdrawal from Manipur and the
Northeast. Insurgent groups are mushrooming
in Manipur and the Northeast. However, it is
a fact that the Act has not deterred the
growth of insurgent groups. The Act has
alienated civil society from the State and
pushed some of the people towards
insurgency.
There are several instances of excesses
committed by security forces which have led
to violent protests in Manipur. On 15 July
2004, 12 women of the Meitei community
disrobed themselves outside the headquarters
of the 17th Assam Rifles to protest against
the rape and murder of Manorama Devi. Though
Meitei women are considered to be meek and
mild, they are fearless when challenged.
Nupilal (war of women) of 1939 is a
testimony to this fact.
In 1939, Manipur women had come out on the
streets to protest against the shortage of
rice and the British Government had to
resort to firing to quell the protests.
Since then, a Nupilal Memorial is held every
year to commemorate this event. In 1975,
Manipuri women in the Valley had formed
Nishabandis, a movement against alcoholism
and forced the Government in 1980 to declare
Manipur a dry state by imposing prohibition.
Following the Imposition, the Nishabandhis
turned into Meira Paibis (torch bearers) who
kept vigil during nights against raids by
police and security forces. The 12 women,
who led the 15 July protest at the Assam
Rifles headquarters in Kangla, are members
of the All Manipur Social Reformation and
Development Samaj, which is the mother
organization of Meira Paibis. Though Manipur
is a patriarchal society, women play a very
active role in socio-economic tasks. Meitei
women are particularly known for their
participation in socio-economic and cultural
activities.
Several self-immolation attempts also took
place in Manipur to protest against the Act.
On 15 August, 28-year old Pebam Chittaranjan,
a student leader and advisor to the Manipuri
Students Federation, attempted
self-immolation to protest against the Act.
He died a day later at the Regional
Institute of Medical Science Hospital in
Imphal. Following these protests, the State
Government lifted the Act from some parts of
Imphal even though the Central Government
was not in favor of the action. The
perception of the Central Government is that
the ongoing agitation against the Act has
been orchestrated by insurgent groups.
Some pertinent questions are:
* Is the AFSPA a panacea for insurgency?
* For how long can a region and its people
be kept under subjugation by military might
if civil society is, getting alienated?
* Should the Central Government push civil
society into the arms of insurgents by
allowing human rights violations in the name
of counter-insurgency?
* Why has India failed to integrate Manipur
emotionally during the 55 years since its
merger into the Indian Union in 1949?
* Is democratic India to be sustained by
military might?
* After fighting Naga insurgents for almost
half a century, the Government is now
engaged in a dialogue since 1997. Does this
not indicate that insurgency cannot be
resolved with guns, and that dialogue is the
civilized, reasonable and democratic means
to be used for tackling insurgency?
* When the Government of India is willing to
talk to Naga insurgents (NSCN) of Nagaland,
the Hurriyat Conference of Jammu and
Kashmir, ANVC of Meghalaya, ULFA and Bodo
rebels of Assam, then what is the reason for
not holding negotiations with insurgent
groups of Manipur?
* If POTA could be repealed by the Congress
party on the grounds that the Act lacked a
human face and was misused in many areas,
then why can’t the AFSPA, which is draconian
and has been grossly misused for almost half
a century, be repealed or replaced by a
better legislation?
The Indian Prime Minister should invite the
insurgent of Manipur for talks. The dialogue
process should be supplemented with economic
development of the State. The fact is that
mounting unemployment and poverty are
driving the youth in the State towards
insurgency, which has become an alternative
source of employment and livelihood in the
region.
Both the Central and, State Governments
should draw a roadmap for lasting peace and
development in Manipur. It would be
advisable if the State Government is
assisted by experts on economic issues for
pulling the State out of the economic morass
in which it is today. Strategies for
countering insurgency and bringing
development should include provision of
quality education, health care, creation of
employment avenues and good infrastructure.
Manipur should not be abandoned to the
periphery of national consciousness.
[On August 26, 2004, the SAPRA India
Foundation organized a Round Table to
discuss the recent developments in Manipur
in the context of the Armed Forces Special
Powers Act, 1958 (AFSPA). The participants
included former Indian army chief and Rajya
Sabha member, Gen. (retd.) Shankar
Roychowdhury, former Intelligence Bureau
official, M.K. Dhar, and former DG BSF &
Member National Security Advisory Board, E.N.
Rammohan. Former Chief Minister of Manipur,
Radhabinod Koijam, presented a paper on the
Manipur situation. The former Chief Minister
suggested that the Government of India
should outline a roadmap for lasting peace
and development in Manipur.]
*** The writer
is the former Chief Minister of Manipur
(February-June 2001), currently president,
Research and Strategic Development
Organization for the North-East.
*** The article
was published sometime during the upheaval
after the 'Killing
of Thangjam Manorama'
by Assam Rifles personnel.
|
