Soldiers need support in insurgency hit areas The Statesman 07 Aug 18

Soldiers need support in insurgency hit areas The Statesman 07 Aug 18

The Supreme Court is presently hearing a PIL on supposed extra-judicial killings during the peak of insurgency in Manipur. It has been pressurizing the CBI, presently investigating some of the cases, to speed up its processes. In the last hearing on 30th July the court summoned the head of CBI and left him with the option of arresting those security personnel against whom investigations were complete and charge sheets filed.

Manipur had been the hotbed of insurgency since the early eighties. The difference between insurgency and proxy war, as is being played out in Kashmir, is that in an insurgency, insurgents are locals, whereas in a proxy war, militants are from across the border. The only way an insurgency can sustain itself, as against a proxy war, which is funded and fuelled from across, is by support from the local population.

Without local support, an insurgent is a fish out of water. Insurgents melt into local populace making detection difficult. Strategically security forces would attempt to isolate the insurgent from his support base, while insurgents with their supporters would seek to impact the success of security forces. This jigsaw battle results in an adverse local-security forces relationship. Since insurgents are locals, their elimination would, on occasions, be presented as innocents.

Insurgent groups had declared parts of Manipur in the eighties as liberated zones, where government writ did not exist. The army alongside other security forces moved in, clearing area by area, in jungle terrain which favours the insurgent, rather than security forces. AFSPA was invoked with the deployment of the army. The Manipur Government commented even as late as Dec 2017, that it was only by deploying the army, that the situation could be brought under control. Currently, AFSPA continues throughout the state less the Imphal urban area.

Security forces have lost over 1900 personnel in Manipur and more than 3100 have been injured. Sustained pressure resulted in eliminating over 4900 militants and surrenders of over 5100. Between 1979 and 2012, 1528 cases of extra-judicial encounters have been reported against security forces, based on individual testimonies, written complaints and commission of enquiries.

Mr YJ Singh, the present Dy CM and former chief of Manipur Police stated, ‘There may have been a few cases of extra-judicial killings, but I don’t think the numbers being quoted are that many. If 1500 people had been illegally killed, there would have been more protests in the state.’ 62 cases are currently under investigation by the CBI’s Special Investigation Team (SIT). It is evident that eyewitness records and testimonies would be biased against security forces.

Most insurgent groups do not fear any local force except when it operates alongside the army. Hence, insurgent groups would employ all means to discredit the army, seeking a drop in its morale, to rebound back to power.

Security forces operating in insurgency areas are doing so under orders of the government, never their free will. They face a hostile population supporting insurgency. Security forces are compelled to act on flow of information, which at times may be misleading. The atmosphere for security forces in an insurgency is frustrating and tense as differentiating between an insurgent and local is difficult, at times leading to errors.

Many cases under investigation pertain to over a decade ago. Most now being questioned may be senior citizens who had then performed their tasks as per directions of the government and in good faith. None of the cases involve security personnel acting for personal gains, but for seeking to eradicate a movement, threatening the fabric of the nation.

There have neither been reports of mass murders or use of weapons of mass destruction nor of forces acting in anger or revenge, as the trend the world over in battling insurgencies would indicate. Neither had the government created an ‘Ikwan’ type force in Manipur, which dealt its own brand of justice.

By reigniting the cases, seeking to bring those involved to justice, including legally charging them, ignoring the provisions of the government enacted AFSPA, the courts would impact the morale and functioning of security forces in difficult regions, where the writ of the state has ceased.

A humble suggestion to the courts would be to adopt a mature approach, setting in motion procedures to prevent such incidents from reoccurring in the future. This may include revisiting laws and regulations.

A witch hunt against those presently considered accused but had then served with honour would never resurrect the dead. It would indicate to be an act of vengeance by the judiciary, against those who acted in good faith, which is not the philosophy of a democratic state nor a mature judiciary.

Many Manipuri’s battling cases on extra-judicial encounters state that they are doing so to remove the stigma of the individual killed being an insurgent, as crimes and misdemeanours of family members can taint all born within it. Ideally, the state should seek to compensate families of those who cases are proved to be genuine and render an apology to those whose near and dear one’s were killed inadvertently.

The nation could consider the example of the ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre of Northern Ireland in 1972, denied by the British for forty years, after which their Prime Minister Cameroon apologized in parliament in 2010.

Manipur is neither the first region where an anti-national environment existed, nor would it be the last. Every time the nation faces a crisis, it is the army and other security forces which are pushed forward to regain the writ of the state. If post every resolution of conflict, those involved are questioned, then the future would be bleak for the nation.

It is an established fact that in insurgency or proxy war regions, security forces presence is always resented, as is evident presently in the valley. They are targeted from all directions, locals, insurgents, politicians during their deployment and now post resolution even the judiciary. A similar case as Manipur may happen tomorrow in Kashmir, when post the resolution of militancy, accusations suddenly rise.

It is for the learned of this nation to consider whether it should support the soldier who battles for the nation, ignoring his own life and comforts, or accuse him as soon as he brings an area back to normalcy. We need to look ahead and seek solutions to prevent such recurrences, rather than adopt a policy of vengeance. A nation which only remembers its soldiers in times of trouble and dumps them thereafter would never have a clear conscience.