On December 4, 2021, as many as 14 people, including 13 civilians, were killed in an army operation conducted at Oting in Mon district of Nagaland. In a statement issued on the next day, the Army’s 3 Corps claimed responsibility for the killing of the civilians and stated that it “deeply regretted” the incident. The Army in a statement had said that based on credible intelligence of likely movement of insurgents, a specific operation was planned to be conducted in the area of Tiru, Mon district, Nagaland.
Although the Army admitted its involvement in the Mon incident, it tries hard to justify the ‘act’ of slaughtering innocent villagers on the basis of what they called ‘credible’ intelligence reports and also a case of mistaken identity. How could it be a case of mistaken identity? No matter what, it is a clear case of misconception and general suspicion of the people of these parts among members of the security forces which has led to the occurrence of the Oting ambush. We thought, justice would finally prevail this time as Army authorities had openly admitted its involvement in the wrongful death of 14 people including 13 civilians.
Yet, the central government refused to grant prosecution sanction in the case. And the Supreme Court on Tuesday September 17 closed criminal proceedings initiated against 30 Army personnel implicated in the killing of 13 civilians. A division bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath while allowing an appeal filed by the wife of one of the implicated officers said that the proceedings in the FIRs shall stand closed. However, if the sanction is granted the same may be taken to its logical conclusion. The Supreme Court made it clear that its order shall not preclude the Army from taking any disciplinary proceedings against the officers.
The grant of prosecution sanction in cases involving human rights abuse by army personnel has been a major hurdle till the apex court intervened. The Supreme Court appointed the Justice Santosh Hegde committee to investigate encounter killings in Manipur based on a writ petition filed by the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) in 2012. While methodically exposing the Act’s failure to tackle insurgency in the state, it had noted in its report that AFSPA was an impediment to achieving peace in regions such as Jammu and Kashmir and the North East.
The commission also said the law needs to be reviewed every six months to see whether its implementation is actually necessary in states where it is being enforced. However, these review meetings turned out to be a routine exercise always overwhelmed by security considerations and further extension of the Act. Years of experience tell us that under the shadow of AFSPA, the armed forces operate with impunity and get away with torture, rapes, killings and fake encounters while prosecution is a mirage. Compared to other north-eastern states, Nagaland was most affected by the AFSPA regime where entire villages were razed to the ground. Assam had also witnessed atrocities and several instances of human rights violations.
In the wake of the brutal rape and murder of Manorama Devi the then O Ibobi-led Congress government had withdrawn it from seven assembly constituencies of Greater Imphal despite objections from the Centre. Now, the BJP government at the Centre had recently decided to reduce the coverage area of AFSPA in view of the improved law and order situation.
However, AFSPA still remains in force in the hill areas of Manipur. AFSPA had been lifted from only 15 police stations including the six within the Greater Imphal area and it was withdrawn in the previous Congress regime. In the latest order, nine more police stations including Sekmai, Lamsang, Bishnupur, Patsoi, Lamlai, Irilbung, Thoubal, Kakching and Jiribam all in the valley districts have been excluded from AFSPA operations. In Assam, AFSPA was withdrawn from 23 districts while in Manipur and Nagaland it was withdrawn from 15 police stations each. To the Indian establishment, it was a big move given the objections from the defence lobby against its removal. The objection to prosecution sanction of the personnel implicated in the Oting massacre only proves that the defence lobby is in control.
