feeds from sacw.net
print versionKashmir Times, 16 January 2011
If union home secretary, G.K. Pillai renewed some optimism with his remarks about probability of troops reduction in Jammu and Kashmir, the army burst the bubble with its emphatic ’no’ to any such eventuality. The army’s abject denial signifies two grave wrongs that are detrimental to interests of a constitutional democracy. First that it seeks to hold the presence of troops as some kind of a sacred ritual that cannot be questioned. Second, and more importantly, that the army deems it has the right to turn down decisions being taken at the political and civil administration level. Earlier this summer, the army had similarly opposed the move for revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act when the union home ministry was toying with the idea.
Misconceptions endorsed by a militaristic mindset need to be cleared. The armed forces of the country are no holy cow and cannot be treated above the board. There is nothing sacrosanct about the army or para-militaries occupying civilian spaces. Rather their presence is against the very basic essence of democracy since it tends to put restrictions on the civil liberties of the people living in highly militarized zones. If such a high presence of troops is legitimised on the basis of high levels of violence, militancy or any other law and order problem, the same logic can be used to reverse the trend. However, in the Kashmir case, the number of troops operating has remained much the same whether it was the case of dealing with thousands of armed insurgents or whether it is just a couple of hundreds, reduced to few pockets. Infact, more numbers have been added, not to forget the doubling up of the local police, a segment of which is involved in counter insurgency and extremely notorious for its repressive tactics and gross violation of human rights. The troops build-up has never been seriously reviewed in view of the declining graph of militancy related violence as if there is something sacred about the usurpation of space by the military or the extra-judicial powers it enjoys.
Few months ago, an army general even had the audacity to equate the AFSPA to a holy book. On Friday, when the union home secretary talked about scaling down troops, the army chief did not only turn down such a proposal, he also justified the continuance of AFSPA and the policy of opposing any judicial trial for army personnel tainted on account of human rights abuse. His logic was that the legal system in Jammu and Kashmir is not reliable enough. He quoted instance of Kashmir Bar president Mian Abdul Qayoom in prison for several months. While one person’s incarceration does not become an indication of the entire legal system, which not only includes lawyers but also judges, the same question can easily be thrown back to the army chief. Why indeed is Mian Qayoom in prison? Apparently, there are no charges against him. He is simply detained under public safety act, an extra-constitutional tool in the hands of the powers that be for political vendetta or suit their whims. By that logic, there indeed is something wrong with the legal system of this state where anybody can be detained purely on basis of some suspicion, even none at all. The continuum of extra legal powers to the men in uniform only perpetuates a flawed legal system since it seeks to patronise some persons despite their endless crimes of murders, tortures and rapes.
Such practices do not behove of any democracy, where people ought to be put above the army or any other uniformed force. It is only in a military dictatorship that the army is above all and above the board. India happens to be a constitutional democracy. The AFSPA was incorporated into the constitution by an act of the parliament. Only the parliament can strike it down. How can a democratic country allow its army to dictate terms and make political statements on AFSPA revocation or troops withdrawal? The army at best can have a recommendatory role, not one beyond that. India is a democracy, guided by its constitution where much emphasis is laid on the rights of individuals and civil liberties. Indian official position is that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Why can’t rights which rest of the nation enjoys be applicable to the people in this state? It would be a great paradox to call Jammu and Kashmir an integral part of the country if instead of pursuing democracy here, what is being accomplished is a coup, atleast in the psychological sense, by those with military might.
[SEE RELATED MATERIAL:
Plan to cut security forces in J&K by Vinay Kumar (The Hindu - ‎January 14, 2011‎)
Army not to cut down forces in J&K: Gen VK Singh (Economic Times - ‎Jan 14, 2011‎) ]
