Army in a warless future
A petition by 356 army officers to the Supreme Courts against any move to dilute the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act, AFSPA, brings to the fore once again some of the vexed issues associated with this Act and its application. In a somewhat related way, this is also another reminder to the Indian state to begin reimagining the role of the military. That is, if full scale war becomes redundant, as it indeed seems to be, what are the new roles the military should be made to shoulder.
The army officers’ petition comes in the wake of an SC ruling of July 8, 2016 which said the shield against legal prosecution provided by the AFSPA to army officers for their actions under the Act, cannot be to all extent and must yield to the universal standards of Human Rights. The AFSPA also gives sweeping powers to army personnel acting under it, including to kill on suspicion, enter homes and search without warrant, destroy structures on suspicion they are hideouts of militants, over and above the impunity clause. This SC ruling was in a case filed by the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association Manipur, EEVFAM, seeking inquiry into the alleged 1528 alleged fake encounter killings in the state by the army and state police in the name of counterinsurgency during the period 2000 and 2012.
Earlier in January 2013, taking cognizance of the gravity of the case, the SC had constituted a committee headed by a retired SC judge, Santosh Hegde, to do an initial probe. Former Chief Election Commissioner JM Lyngdoh and former Karnataka DGP Ajay Kumar Singh were other members of the committee. The committee picked up six of the 1528 cases at random and held hearings in Imphal and at the end of it concluded all six were killed in custody and that none of the victims had criminal records.
On July 14, 2017, another ruling of the SC ordered the CBI to form a team and thoroughly investigate the cases. After being severely reprimanded by the SC for dragging its feet on the matter, the CBI has now begun investigating in earnest. Amidst the heat generated, whistle blowers from within the army and police establishments have come out in public claiming they are witnesses to many of these executions. The sensational revelation of custodial torture, killings and extortions by a unit of the 3-Corps’ Intelligence and Surveillance Unit, 3-CISU, last month by Lt. Col. Dharamvir Singh, in particular would have shaken up the army establishment. Col. Singh’s own petition is also now pending in the Manipur High Court.
It is against this backdrop that the current petition by the army officers have come. The argument is, the army are trained to fight enemies in war and not do civil policing duties, and if they are called upon to do the latter, they have to be given the powers and impunity that the AFSPA guarantees. Furthermore, the army have entered these conflict theatres not out of choice but because the civil authorities invited them, and that if the civil authorities do not want them they would be happy to go back to their barracks.
Dissent against the AFSPA is often misinterpreted as dissent against the army, therefore this clarification at this point that the two are not the same. The point of contention here is definitely the AFSPA but not necessarily the army.
Nobody will dispute that the army are trained to fight wars and guard the nation’s borders but should a situation arise that the civil authorities need the army’s firepower to meet internal challenges, they are obliged to obey, after all, India is a republic where civil authority is supreme and definitely above that of military. It is no coincidence that the Supreme Commander of the Indian Army is a civilian – the President of India. By the same logic, if the Supreme Court wants the army to not transgress the international principles of Human Rights, the army are again obliged to keep by the directive.
In any case, the AFSPA does not indicate any allowance for custodial killings or torture, except perhaps the ambiguous phrase that the army are empowered to “use force as may be necessary”. Otherwise, any person the army take into custody is to be handed over the police at the shortest time possible. The AFSPA also mentions nothing of civil crimes such as rape, theft, torture or extortion, and if such crimes do come to be committed by army personnel, it would only be natural for relevant civil laws to arbitrate.
There is a larger issue here. The last declared full scale war India fought was nearly 50 years ago in 1971 and quite likely it may never fight another war again. Under the circumstance, the army’s role may be restricted to only deterrence. Should this be enough purpose, or should other gainful responsibilities be thought of for the army? It is quite likely such a new role will more likely be duties akin to policing, perhaps in the nature of UN peacekeeping forces – not fighting enemies or wars but assisting in upkeep of civil order. As for instance, there are reports that in China their army are being used in fighting the challenges of pollution. Would it not be appropriate then for India to start conceiving of legislations that can live up to the expectations of such a future, and not be stuck with undemocratic, colonial legacies such as the draconian AFSPA?
The other false argument often forwarded to debunk criticisms of the AFSPA is that there is an ulterior motive in these criticisms. It is contended that Human Rights activists and the media are too quick to attack state forces for alleged Human Rights violations but are unwilling to charge the militants of the same violations when they commit atrocities. The truth is, this is exactly as per the mandate of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. The Human Rights movement was born in the aftermath of the World War II, and in acknowledgment that the state can be serious violator of individual rights. However, especially in the wake of the LTTE, which was a virtual state once, there was an attempt to give parity to both kinds of atrocities with the introduction of the Geneva Conventions Protocol-II, 1977. Unfortunately, most countries with radical internal dissents refused to ratify it as this would give the challengers the status of putative states. Until such a protocol comes to be adopted as an international law then, atrocities by state forces will remain as Human Rights violations and those by militants as law and order problems for the state to resolve.
(First published in New Indian Express)
IMPHAL | Jun 17 Even as Education minister Radheshyam underplayed the leadership crisis within BJP as a mere ‘family matter’, there are indications of a possible change of guard anytime before August this year, most probably after July 26. According.....
IMPHAL | Jun 17 The chief minister of Manipur, N. Biren Singh met with the union minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Prakash Javedkar today and apprised him of the various activities being taken up by the state government for conserva.....
IMPHAL | Jun 17 Expressing apprehension over the probable reintroduction of the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Bill tomorrow during the monsoon session of 17th Lok Sabha, Manipur People against Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (MANPAC) today reaffirme.....
THOUBAL| Jun 17 A fire which occurred around 9:40 pm of last night at Phoubakchao Phou-oibi Keithel totally set ablaze seven shops and a residence destroying properties worth around several lakh rupees. Phoubakchao Phou-oibi Keithel lies under Mayang I.....
IMPHAL | Jun 17 Session Judge, Imphal West started the special trail for the case of infamous BT road fake encounter which occurred on July 23, 2009 and fixed the next prosecution witness hearing on July 15. It was transferred by High Court of Manip.....