Walter Fernandes
Finally, the Supreme Court has taken the first step for protecting the human rights of civilians in the Northeast by declaring that the armed forces cannot use excessive force to put down insurgency. That judgement came in the public interest litigation involving 1,528 fake encounter deaths in some districts of Manipur. That is a fraction of the reality because according to a retired director of the intelligence bureau for the Northeast, no fewer than 8,983 people have been killed in fake encounters in Manipur 1991-2012, 6,023 in Assam 2001-2012 and 2,803 in Mizoram in a decade. It comes to more than 1,000 cases per year or three per day in these three States alone and there have been more such killings in Nagaland and Tripura. To these deaths one has to add the frightening reality of young women getting raped, wives becoming widows, children turning into orphans, youth remaining illiterate due to the closing down of schools, and houses reduced to ashes. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was enacted in 1958 in order to control what was called insurgency in the Northeast. It was to be an experimental measure for six months. Initially it applied only to Nagaland which alone had a nationalist struggle led by Angami Zaphu Phizo who demanded autonomy in the place of the centralised administration of the Indian Union. It became a nationalist struggle when autonomy was denied to the Nagas. AFSPA was then extended to parts of most other North Eastern States and later to Jammu and Kashmir. Though it was meant to be a deterrent to militant groups the reality shows that it cannot play that role. The Northeast had only the Naga Nationalist movement when AFSPA was enacted in 1958. Manipur had two groups when it was extended to it. Today Manipur alone has around 30 militant groups and the Northeast probably has more than a hundred of them. Instead of being a deterrent AFSPA seems to have become a tool of abuse in the hands of the armed forces as the number of killings in fake encounters show. And yet AFSPA has remained in place for nearly six decades. There seem to be many vested interests in retaining it and people’s security is not one of them. Giving the K. Subramanyam Memorial Lecture on February 6, 2013, at the Institute of Defence Studies, New Delhi, the then Union Home Minister Mr P. Chidambaram is reported to have said “We can’t move forward because there is no consensus. The present and former Army Chiefs have taken a strong position that the Act should not be amended (and) do not want the government notification … to be taken back. How does the government … make the AFSPA a more humanitarian law?” (The Hindu, February 7, 2013). In other words, the Government cannot even make the AFSPA more humane leave alone repeal it because the army chiefs do not want it diluted. That raises some basic questions “Who rules India: The elected representatives or the army or the militants?" “Who are the real threat to civilian peace and security?” “Can guns restore a society in which people can move around freely without fear?” Some commissions have attempted answers to these questions. In 2013, the Justice Verma Commission recommended that sexual crimes committed by armed forces should be judged under the act that applies to civilians but the law has not even been diluted in favour of this recommendation. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee report recommended a review of the Act.
Mr R. N. Ravi, former head of the Intelligence Bureau for the North East is on record that AFSPA is the biggest obstacle to peace in the region. Former Home Secretary Mr G. K. Pillai has come out openly against the Act. These statements are not emotional outbursts. They come from persons who have worked in the system and know the dynamics of the Act and of running the Government. But AFSPA has remained on the statute book irrespective of whether the Ministry at the Centre is of the Congress or BJP or others. The army is opposed to any dilution of the Act leave alone its repeal. So it remains unchanged. That raises the main question “Are we a democracy in which civilians are elected to rule the country or is the army supreme?” The elected civilians have the responsibility to ensure that the security forces work under the Constitution. But in the North East and Jammu and Kashmir where AFSPA applies the armed forces seem to control people’s lives. This situation can easily turn the democratic State into a military ruled one as noticed in Nagaland less than a year ago when an Assam Rifles officer, nlt the civilian government, ordered newspapers not to publish the news releases of banned militant groups. This situation is a challenge to civil society groups to find alternative ways of building peace based on justice. An important step towards it is confidence building measures and they are not possible as long as a draconian law like AFSPA is in place. The Supreme Court has struck the first blow by removing the impunity that the security forces enjoy. The people of the North East can take more steps by coming together to demand its repeal. As long as people live under such a draconian law they cannot feel secure. Without its immediate repeal the NSCN-IM-GOI peace negotiations make no sense. What peace can one expect when the priority of the State is to protect the territory and for this purpose it kills people in the name of national security? AFSPA can only increase insecurity, terrorism, violence against women, and loss of lives. An important condition of an alternative is unity among people who are threatened by this anti-democratic measure. But one does not see such unity coming. Even the 1,528 cases mentioned in the PIL are mainly from the Imphal Valley with a few others added to it. When the Meitei demand its repeal Nagas and Kukis of Manipur do not join them. When Manipur demands it Nagaland and Assam are silent. Such disunity makes it easy for the security forces to “divide and rule” the communities of the region separately. It is time the people of the region came together and demanded its repeal and convinced the political rulers that territory is important but that the people who inhabit it are equally important. The State has to be convinced that the gun cannot solve political problems.
Dr Walter Fernandes works at North Eastern Social Research Centre, Guwahati. walter.nesrc@gmail.com
.JPG)
