Police play plaintiff & defendant during Human Rights debate
Morung Express News
Dimapur | October 20
Citizens have become accustomed to the security forces strongly defending acts of highhandedness no matter what the circumstance. Rarely have there been instances of the custodians of the law admitting excesses or wholeheartedly redressing grievances of the people at the receiving end. Yet there are times when the uniformed personnel themselves immerse in such a delicate topic albeit in the form of friendly debate far from the reach of tribunals.
The annual state police debate competition is one such occasion when uniformed personnel play the role of plaintiff and defendant on the role and actions of the police.
The 12th edition of the Nagaland Police State Level Debate Competition held on October 20 at the NAPTC, Chumukedima threw up a number of questions rather real dilemmas that have taken centre stage in the state over the years. Organised under the aegis of the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, this year’s topic of contention was ‘No Human Rights violations in Nagaland by police and security forces.’
Twenty (20) debaters – 11 for the motion and 9 against the motion - with ranks ranging from Naiks to Inspectors were in the fray. Custodial death, illegal detention, AFSPA, the March 5, 2015 incident, civilians taking law into their own hands with the police standing by and encounters between security forces and the Naga Political Groups were highlights of the debate. “Citizens have certain rights guaranteed under the constitution but at the same time, it does not give the right to rob, kill or to disturb peace,” asserted Naik Zhekishe of the 10th NAP (IR) speaking in support of the motion. Maintaining that the police and security forces have the right to uphold the law, he added that the police intervene and resort to force only when absolutely necessary. “We’re the defenders of the innocent, not the offenders.”
The counter from the opposing team brought to the fore a number of incidents that briefly held the team for the motion in the back foot. ABSI Kitskha Achumi of DEF Mokokchung cited instances of search and arrest without warrant from a court of law in Dimapur as recent as 2015, of an accused accosted at gunpoint at a police station in 2014 and a person accused of murder beaten while in custody, who allegedly committed suicide.
ABSI Imkongonen of DEF Mokokchung contented that the use of force is necessitated as in a hostile environment in the face of dangerous criminals and armed militants. Certain situations demand the use of force but minimally, he defended. ASI Latwang of DEF Mon, against the motion, maintained that while Human Rights violations has taken centre stage the absence of a proper redress mechanism is another serious question, which in itself is a violation of rights. “The very term – Human Rights, is inalienable,” while citing AFSPA, he added, “(It) testifies to the fact the violation of Human Rights.”
UBSI Mhathung Lotha of PTS, Chumukedima, for the motion, maintained that despite the accusations, which could not be established in a court of law, Nagaland Police has fared well when it comes to upholding Human Rights. Stating that the state police have been doing its job in all sincerity, he added that the frequent accusations and negative portrayal has not made the job any easier.
UBSI (Probationer) L. Thungchamo Mozhui of DEF Kohima, against the motion, stated that custodial torture has rather become synonymous with Human Rights violations; however, he added that there are more to it that often are sidelined. Human Rights violations can take various forms, he added.
Earlier, IGP (Crime), SR Saravanan, delivering the keynote address described Human Rights as a tricky topic but necessary for the police to self-evaluate. While stating the state police has been making effort to spread awareness on the matter, he asked whether the effort is having the desired effect. Stating that it needs serious introspection, he added that as a visible arm of the government, the police should not project itself as neglecting the public.
