On AFSPA

There are those hardcore Indian nationalists who have defended Armed Forces Special Powers Act. In the name of national security, criticism of the Act has even been prevented. Those who criticise the Act are portrayed as compromising their love for the motherland, and only those who defend the Act are protective of the country. Thankfully, P. Chidambaram has been vocal about the untenability maintaining the Act as it stands today. He has once again raised the matter, which can be read here. He has done that in the past too as a Home Minister but could not alter the status of the Act due to Army folks putting their foot down to any proposal to get the Act amended.

Two comments. First, the Act would not have generated such controversy had the army personnel acted strictly within the guidelines provided by the Act. However, the matter is such that the army personnel would rape or kill through fake encounter again and again and again and again and again...and then get away with all of these by invoking the Act. The Act does not provide immunity for rape or torture or fake encounter killing. However, as it happens in the ground, the army personnel would go about doing anything and then get away with it. The Act has been misused! But if there is the understanding within the army and the government that the Act virtually contain allows the army anything to do and get away with it, then let it be spelled out explicitly. But this cannot happen! A state will never admit that the it gives the army personnel to commit such crime against the civilians, deliberately and systematically for over fifty years! But if it is not willing to be transparent, why continue to maintain the Act as it is? 

Second, the army cannot defend its action publicly. The covert acts that have been deliberately and systematically committed on civilians, and invoking AFSPA whenever dragged to Court, cannot be allowed to continue. How can crimes against humanity be allowed to continue in the name of AFSPA? The debates at the level of ideas and the way democratic form of governance, which includes defending human rights or right to liberty of any individual, are sustained and needs to progress, are not the job of army personnel; this domain lies with the civil authority. To let the army put its foot down against the wishes of the civil government and let the Act continue as it stands is not a healthy way of governing the state. Every body contributes to sustain the state, and each one has its role. The army must perform role to sustain the state, and so must the civil authority. There is even this rumour in the North East that the army deliberately create low intensity warfare to receive high funding. Given this rumour and its history of being a victim of army excesses, allowing the army to have final say in policy matter is unhealthy.

This draconian Act should not continue as it stands today.