Democracy a casualty of AFSPA:Al Ngullie
Dimapur | May 22 : The 50 years of the draconian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 owes its reviled existence to an abysmal concoction of authoritarian political fallacies, misapprehension of the justice system and circumstantial socio-political exigencies, apart from the Act’s declared objective to stemming resistance movements.
These political dynamics have continued to be reinforced by parallel motivations of the Government of India to control or remain in control, and on the other hand, by the apathy demonstrated by a justice system that identifies inhumanity against peoples, with confronting the so-called “lawlessness.” This misconception of the Indian system, particularly the justice system, has been buttressed even more by geo-political “security” interests rather than by humanitarian standards and considerations.
‘India does not respond (to recommendations and peoples’ mandate for AFSPA repeal) because it fears threat to national security’ said Indira Jai Singh, a constitutional expert. She held vehement opinion that the AFSPA is a ‘totally unnecessary’ law, and does not merge with the ground realities of the people of Northeast India and states like Kashmir. “It is a totally unnecessary, draconian and absurd Act. The Act is absurd to the situation and it must be repealed” said Singh who is an authority on the constitution and well-associated with the matter of ‘degenerate’ laws imposed by political states on resistance-states.
To the query that the Indian military is a tremendous weight responsible for keeping the AFSPA stuck strongly, she said it is not necessarily the military but the government of India. “It is the government and the cabinet that puts the final stamp of approval, not the army.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee was instated by the PMO to explore the possibility of substituting the AFSPA with a so-called “more humane” Act. The committee submitted its report June 6 in 2005 and recommended that the Act be repealed. Similarly, the Administrative Reforms Committee headed by Veerappan Moily also recommended on June 26 last year that the Act should be scrapped. Even the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had in February 2007 also recommended that the Indian Government immediately repeal the AFSPA. Till date, there has yet to be a word from the GoI.
While it was implied that recommendations are had from the military, however, Singh said, it is the government that wants to maintain strict centralization, as a means to preserving territorial integrity of the country. Over the inaction demonstrated by the centre on the recommendations made by several high-committees for AFSPA’s repeal, Singh said that India does not respond, citing ‘security’ reasons and maintains a “hands-off” attitude.
However, the justice system of India is no less culpable for reinforcing the ‘stay’ of the black law. Queried why the judiciary should also virtually endorse the Act even very well knowing that AFSPA has in itself extreme perils against Human Rights, Singh said the judiciary does not want to be placed in a position of political accountability.
The Supreme Court is “afraid” that if ceasefires break down (the county’s security would be compromised). ‘It is maintaining a ‘hands-off attitude because it fears that a war or revolt would break out and does not want to be held responsible’ she explained. She was responding to a query up to what extend the Indian justice institution has reciprocated to the black law, or the inhumanity that has been waged under its sanction for the last 50 years.
It was observed that if the AFSPA was to be revoked if at all demanded by the Indian judiciary, then the military and state police forces would be compromised or would “lose teeth” in its fight against resistance movements. And the court would not want to be placed in a position where it is blamed for threat that may arise out of the absence of the AFSPA. So naturally the Indian judiciary, although aware of the profound dangers to Human Rights, does not endorse repeal of the Act, it was implied. ‘It is afraid so it keeps citing “security”’ Singh said. Expression was also made that there is no action expected whatsoever, from the Indian government or the Indian justice institution, no matter how sever Human Rights are violated under the Act.
The constitutional expert’s viewpoint was reiterated by Ahu Sakhrie, who is a former convener of the Naga Peoples’ Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR). According to Sakhrie, courts and judges are “sly” when it comes to the AFSPA.
“The judges are always sly. They (judiciary) are always citing ‘national security.’ They think that the Armed forces would be demoralized and the ‘hostiles, and militants’ would take over” Sakhrie explained. Ahu Sakhrie is founding-member of the NPMHR. “If the Act is repealed, they feel the Army cannot act (against resistance movements)” he said in explanation on why the judiciary remains practically apathetic to the black law.
Queried to comment on the possible reasons why the GoI cannot repeal or even offer an alternative over the AFSPA, Sakhrie made clear that the Indian government has “political interests.”
Referring to the assurance given by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to instate a more so-called “humane Act,” the former NPMHR leader said the government does not want to be held accountable as well, as much as the judiciary does not want to be. If the Congress-led government at the center, which is also a coalition, repeals the act, it (government) will not do well in the eyes of the military and the coalition partners, he said. It was implied that repealing the AFSPA would compromise the regional geo-political integrity of the Indian setup. It is these political interests that are responsible for the GoI not responding to the widespread mandate of the people, especially of the NE, to repeal the black law.
One of these political interests overriding humanitarian polity, is testified by the fact that present Minister of State for Science & Technology for Kapil Sibal, was the lawyer who took up the NPMHR’s case in 1997. Today he is a minister, and his hands are tied, Sakhrie remarked. “He knows all the problems of the NE and Nagaland; he helped so much and pressurized for the AFSPA’s repeal “but today his hands are tied” Sakhrie commented.
Justice Jeeven Reddy Committee
The apathy that has been demonstrated by the Union Government and the Indian justice system is testified by several high-committees, whose recommendations remain gathering dust. On June 6, the expert panel which the Congress Manmohan Singh government set up in November to review the workings of the AFSPA, submitted its report. The panel was chaired by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, a retired judge of the Supreme Court and consisted of former Director-General of Military Operations (DGMO) and military analyst Lt. Gen VR Raghavan, academician and former Vice-Chancellor of Marathwada University Prof. SB Nakade, senior journalist and authority on the NE Sanjoy Hazarika and finally PP Srivastava, former Special Secretary for Home.
The recommendations or report dispatched to the Union government by this committee has yet to be even responded to, leave alone make it public. Member of the committee Sanjoy Hazrika said earlier that the Act be repealed without any further ado.
The original ordinance story
Viceroy Lord Linlithgow declared emergency in British India and promulgated the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance in 1942 on August 15, 1942. This act conferred vaguely-defined special powers to the armed forces to arrest and use force (even kill) civilians on mere suspicion.
On 15 August 1947, India became independent and then a republic on 26 January, 1950. In 1958 a mutated Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 from the original Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, came into being. The AFSPA 1958 is with modifications of the 1942 ordinance.
• The provision for declaration of ‘emergency’ was replaced by the term “disturbed area”.
• More vaguely-defined powers were added (including the power to use force to even kill any person on suspicion of disturbing public order or carrying weapons, “to search any place without warrant or destroy any place on suspicion of being used by armed groups” to the old ordinance.
• The power to take action, given to an officer of the rank of Captain and above in the old ordinance, was delegated to lower ranks including Junior Commissioned officers and Non-Commissioned Officers (basically, a jawan).
• Areas of operation were confined to ethnically distinct North-East region unlike the 1942 ordinance, which was applied to entire India.
As a result of these modifications, the 1958 ordinance became more political criminal and harsher than the colonial statute of 1942.
These political dynamics have continued to be reinforced by parallel motivations of the Government of India to control or remain in control, and on the other hand, by the apathy demonstrated by a justice system that identifies inhumanity against peoples, with confronting the so-called “lawlessness.” This misconception of the Indian system, particularly the justice system, has been buttressed even more by geo-political “security” interests rather than by humanitarian standards and considerations.
‘India does not respond (to recommendations and peoples’ mandate for AFSPA repeal) because it fears threat to national security’ said Indira Jai Singh, a constitutional expert. She held vehement opinion that the AFSPA is a ‘totally unnecessary’ law, and does not merge with the ground realities of the people of Northeast India and states like Kashmir. “It is a totally unnecessary, draconian and absurd Act. The Act is absurd to the situation and it must be repealed” said Singh who is an authority on the constitution and well-associated with the matter of ‘degenerate’ laws imposed by political states on resistance-states.
To the query that the Indian military is a tremendous weight responsible for keeping the AFSPA stuck strongly, she said it is not necessarily the military but the government of India. “It is the government and the cabinet that puts the final stamp of approval, not the army.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee was instated by the PMO to explore the possibility of substituting the AFSPA with a so-called “more humane” Act. The committee submitted its report June 6 in 2005 and recommended that the Act be repealed. Similarly, the Administrative Reforms Committee headed by Veerappan Moily also recommended on June 26 last year that the Act should be scrapped. Even the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had in February 2007 also recommended that the Indian Government immediately repeal the AFSPA. Till date, there has yet to be a word from the GoI.
While it was implied that recommendations are had from the military, however, Singh said, it is the government that wants to maintain strict centralization, as a means to preserving territorial integrity of the country. Over the inaction demonstrated by the centre on the recommendations made by several high-committees for AFSPA’s repeal, Singh said that India does not respond, citing ‘security’ reasons and maintains a “hands-off” attitude.
However, the justice system of India is no less culpable for reinforcing the ‘stay’ of the black law. Queried why the judiciary should also virtually endorse the Act even very well knowing that AFSPA has in itself extreme perils against Human Rights, Singh said the judiciary does not want to be placed in a position of political accountability.
The Supreme Court is “afraid” that if ceasefires break down (the county’s security would be compromised). ‘It is maintaining a ‘hands-off attitude because it fears that a war or revolt would break out and does not want to be held responsible’ she explained. She was responding to a query up to what extend the Indian justice institution has reciprocated to the black law, or the inhumanity that has been waged under its sanction for the last 50 years.
It was observed that if the AFSPA was to be revoked if at all demanded by the Indian judiciary, then the military and state police forces would be compromised or would “lose teeth” in its fight against resistance movements. And the court would not want to be placed in a position where it is blamed for threat that may arise out of the absence of the AFSPA. So naturally the Indian judiciary, although aware of the profound dangers to Human Rights, does not endorse repeal of the Act, it was implied. ‘It is afraid so it keeps citing “security”’ Singh said. Expression was also made that there is no action expected whatsoever, from the Indian government or the Indian justice institution, no matter how sever Human Rights are violated under the Act.
The constitutional expert’s viewpoint was reiterated by Ahu Sakhrie, who is a former convener of the Naga Peoples’ Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR). According to Sakhrie, courts and judges are “sly” when it comes to the AFSPA.
“The judges are always sly. They (judiciary) are always citing ‘national security.’ They think that the Armed forces would be demoralized and the ‘hostiles, and militants’ would take over” Sakhrie explained. Ahu Sakhrie is founding-member of the NPMHR. “If the Act is repealed, they feel the Army cannot act (against resistance movements)” he said in explanation on why the judiciary remains practically apathetic to the black law.
Queried to comment on the possible reasons why the GoI cannot repeal or even offer an alternative over the AFSPA, Sakhrie made clear that the Indian government has “political interests.”
Referring to the assurance given by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to instate a more so-called “humane Act,” the former NPMHR leader said the government does not want to be held accountable as well, as much as the judiciary does not want to be. If the Congress-led government at the center, which is also a coalition, repeals the act, it (government) will not do well in the eyes of the military and the coalition partners, he said. It was implied that repealing the AFSPA would compromise the regional geo-political integrity of the Indian setup. It is these political interests that are responsible for the GoI not responding to the widespread mandate of the people, especially of the NE, to repeal the black law.
One of these political interests overriding humanitarian polity, is testified by the fact that present Minister of State for Science & Technology for Kapil Sibal, was the lawyer who took up the NPMHR’s case in 1997. Today he is a minister, and his hands are tied, Sakhrie remarked. “He knows all the problems of the NE and Nagaland; he helped so much and pressurized for the AFSPA’s repeal “but today his hands are tied” Sakhrie commented.
Justice Jeeven Reddy Committee
The apathy that has been demonstrated by the Union Government and the Indian justice system is testified by several high-committees, whose recommendations remain gathering dust. On June 6, the expert panel which the Congress Manmohan Singh government set up in November to review the workings of the AFSPA, submitted its report. The panel was chaired by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, a retired judge of the Supreme Court and consisted of former Director-General of Military Operations (DGMO) and military analyst Lt. Gen VR Raghavan, academician and former Vice-Chancellor of Marathwada University Prof. SB Nakade, senior journalist and authority on the NE Sanjoy Hazarika and finally PP Srivastava, former Special Secretary for Home.
The recommendations or report dispatched to the Union government by this committee has yet to be even responded to, leave alone make it public. Member of the committee Sanjoy Hazrika said earlier that the Act be repealed without any further ado.
The original ordinance story
Viceroy Lord Linlithgow declared emergency in British India and promulgated the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance in 1942 on August 15, 1942. This act conferred vaguely-defined special powers to the armed forces to arrest and use force (even kill) civilians on mere suspicion.
On 15 August 1947, India became independent and then a republic on 26 January, 1950. In 1958 a mutated Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 from the original Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, came into being. The AFSPA 1958 is with modifications of the 1942 ordinance.
• The provision for declaration of ‘emergency’ was replaced by the term “disturbed area”.
• More vaguely-defined powers were added (including the power to use force to even kill any person on suspicion of disturbing public order or carrying weapons, “to search any place without warrant or destroy any place on suspicion of being used by armed groups” to the old ordinance.
• The power to take action, given to an officer of the rank of Captain and above in the old ordinance, was delegated to lower ranks including Junior Commissioned officers and Non-Commissioned Officers (basically, a jawan).
• Areas of operation were confined to ethnically distinct North-East region unlike the 1942 ordinance, which was applied to entire India.
As a result of these modifications, the 1958 ordinance became more political criminal and harsher than the colonial statute of 1942.
0 comments:
Post a Comment