Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is an act empowering armed forces to deal effectively in disturbed areas. Any area which is declared disturbed under disturbed areas act enables armed forces to resort to the provisions of AFSPA.The choice of declaring any area as disturbed vests both with state and central government. After an area comes under the ambit of AFSPA,any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or another person of equivalent rank can use force for a variety of reasons while still being immune to the prosecution. The act was passed on 11 September 1958 by the parliament of India to provide special legal security to the armed forces carrying out operations in the troubled areas of Arunachal Pradesh,Assam,Meghalaya,Manipur,Mizoram,Nagaland,Tripura.(seven sisters).However, in 1990 the act was extended to the state of Jammu and Kashmir to confront the rising insurgency in the area. In Manipur, despite opposition from the Central government, state government withdrew the Act in some parts in Aug, 2004. Any state govt. can declare the state of emergency and introduce AFSPA in the following conditions:a)When the local administration fails to deal with local issues and the police proves inefficient to cope with them. b)When the scale of unrest or instability in the state is too large for the police to handle. In case of elections, for instance, when local police is stretched too thin to simultaneously handle day to day tasks, the central govt.obliges by sending in CRPF. Continued unrest due to militant insurgencies and threat to the borders, the armed forces are called in to deal with the situations. However there can be serious ramifications of resorting to armed forces in the civilian settings as the armed forces have no special training about civilian law and policing procedures.
In an area declared disturbed an army officer is legal free to carry out following operations:
a) Fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law" against "assembly of five or more persons" or possession of deadly weapons b) Destroy any shelter (private or govt.)from which armed attacks are made or likely to be made or attempted to be made. c) Arrest any person without warrant who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence. d) Enter and search, without warrant, any premises for purpose of arrest or to recover any person, arms,explosives. e) To search and seize any vehicle suspected to be carrying an offender or any person against whom any reasonable suspicion exists that he has or is about to commit an offence. f) To provide legal immunity to the army personnel found involved in any violation or ethical breach i.e., they cannot be sued or prosecuted.
There is no gainsaying the fact that political necessity drives deployment of the security forces for internal security duties. The forces are aware that they cannot afford to fail when called upon to safeguard the countrys integrity. Hence, they require the minimum legislation that is essential to ensure efficient utilization of combat capability. This includes safeguards from legal harassment and empowerment of its officers to decide on employment of the minimum force that they consider essential. The absence of such a legal statute would adversely affect organizational flexibility and the utilization of the security capacity of the state. This would render the security forces incapable of fulfilling their assigned role. In brief, it would imply that a soldier cannot fire upon a terrorist, take
necessary action to destroy a hideout, arrest a suspect when in doubt, and lastly search any premises to recover arms and ammunition. Consequentially, the security forces have a right to seek legal provisions to undertake operations for three fundamental reasons. One, a soldier unlike a policeman is not empowered by the law to use force. Next, while operating in far flung areas, it is simply not possible to requisition the support of magistrates every now and then. Lastly, their employment is an instrument of `last resort` when all other options have been exhausted.
Secondly, it would motivate the insurgent leadership, field cadres and their over ground supporters to engage in reckless damage to public life and property. It may well result in a security situation which slides beyond redemption, necessitating major political compromise.
Thirdly, the annulment of the law and the resultant lack of security cover would adversely affect the governance and development capacities in the insurgency affected states, and the eventual redress of local grievances.
commitment to uphold human rights principles, as ratified previously to bolster its democratic image. However, impunity, rape, wanton violence, environmental destruction, cultural genocide, developmental aggression, forceful resource exploitation, systematic planned transfer of populations to drown or marginalize indigenous peoples to alienate their land and territories, distortion of history and disempowerment through alien legal system, forced labour, torture, criminalizing indigenous institutions, militarization, racism, stigmatization, socio-economic deprivation, etc will be perpetuated again if the relationship between Indian state(s) and the indigenous peoples or submerged minority nationalities, are shaped by distrust and fear instead of trust, well being and hope. Shall we allow the future to be dominated by violent paradigm such as the continuing use of AFSPA? It is time India gives space for Democracy and its cherished values to reemerge instead of suppressing the genuine democratic voice of We the people which continues to remain excluded under the tyrannous rule. India must today prove that it seriously subscribe to the democratic ideals and upholds universal human rights principles and practices. `India shining will emerge when India authentically makes its bold move to fully embrace democracy and dismantle the violent structures on which it has relied to govern the ungovernable zones and to promote abnormal dispensation as normal credence of democracy. Indian state needs to be more accommodative and understanding in this new century where its prestige as a major international player does not succumb to its own dubious play of trampling over the rights of its citizens.The political problems must be dealt politically without bringing army in direct confrontation with the civilian population. Unless india realises the urge to solve the issues of north eastern states an the much vexed Kashmir problem, these types of violations will continue and the much controversial Indian army will have to face the criticism.
BY :- OWAIS ASHRAF