www.sacw.net - October 20, 2006 > Human Rights
in South Asia (specific focus India)
Scrutinising These 'Special Powers' of India's Armed Forces
by Rakesh Shukla
(Appeared in print in the 'Indian Express')
Suggestions of the committee which reviewed the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act do not go far enough
Irom Sharmila has not let a drop of water pass through her lips
in protest against the draconian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act
after the brutal killing by the army of ten civilians at a bus stand in
Malom in 2000. The AFSPA gives the army powers to kill, arrest, search,
even blow up a building — and all this with immunity from
prosecution. In contrast, the police has the power to kill but only in
case a person accused of an offence that is punishable with death or
life imprisonment is resisting arrest or in the exercise of the right
to private defence.
Unlike the provision for inquest in case of death by the police, there
is no requirement under the AFSPA for army personnel to submit a report
after the killing of people. It is this which makes the legislation
totally arbitrary. From the rape and murder of Manorama in 2004, to the
killing of two siblings returning from the fields on October 4 in
Kashmir this year, the atrocities committed under the Act are well
documented.
The Government of India constituted a Committee to Review the Act in
the wake of widespread agitation in Manipur in protest against the
murder and rape of Manorama Devi. The Committee, headed by Justice
Jeevan Reddy, submitted its report in June 2005. Officially, it is
still under wraps.
The Review Committee recommends the repeal of the AFSPA. Alongside it
recommends the insertion of certain provisions in the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act. The recommendation that the power to fire
be exercised only in case of possession or suspected possession of
bombs, dynamite, explosive substances, firearms, poisonous gases, etc,
is a welcome departure. The recommendation to set up grievances cells
to redress complaints of unlawful arrests, detentions, disappearances,
killings, is well-intentioned. However, the composition of the
mechanism does not inspire confidence. Anyone who has been in areas
where the Armed Forces are deployed can testify to the total power
imbalance between the civil administration and the army. A mere
sub-divisional magistrate, even if he is chairman of the cell, will be
able to do little.
The interface between the civil authorities and the armed forces is of
vital importance. The experience of the working of the AFSPA has shown
that the minute the Armed Forces are deployed, there is virtual
‘army rule’ in the region. Unfortunately, the
recommendation of the Committee that ‘to the extent feasible and
practicable’, the Armed Forces should coordinate their operations
with civil authority, are unlikely to be act as a check.
An awareness of fundamental rights and the gradual escalation of force
goes against the grain of army training. Therefore, the inevitable
consequence of giving independent powers to the army is the large scale
violation of human rights. The setting up of a concrete mechanism to
place the Armed Forces under civil authority, even after an area has
been declared as disturbed, is crucial to check the militarisation of
governance.
The writer is an advocate in the Supreme Court
Return to the
South Asia Citizens Web > Human Rights
in South Asia (specific focus India)