Army officers approach the apex court (English Version) Amar Ujala 07 Sep 18
For the first time in Indian history, 750 army personnel have approached the supreme court to counter the directions of one of its benches to the CBI seeking an early closure of the Manipur “so-called” extra judicial killings. It has requested the apex court to consider multiple facets of its operations, including the environment in which it functioned, protection from prosecution under Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) and victimization.
The bench presently monitoring the cases against the army in Manipur would be hearing its appeal in the coming week. India as a nation had enacted AFSPA in 1958, to curb the rising insurgency in Nagaland. The same was subsequently also extended to Manipur, when the army was inducted to control the insurgency.
The act was needed as the government unable to control the levels of violence unleashed by insurgent groups employing police forces, was forced to move the army in. Traditionally, the army does not possess powers of arrest, detention, opening fire in internal areas of the country and disbanding assembly of groups, actions only available to the police, unless it is specifically granted powers.
Post the return of Manipur to conditions of near-normalcy NGOs began gathering inputs of ‘so-called extra judicial killing of locals by army personnel’. They then filed a case, which is now in the supreme court. The difference in Manipur and J and K, the two states where the army operated and continues to operate is that in J and K, the militancy is a proxy war pushed forth on Indian soil by Pak. Most militants are from Pak or paid by Pak.
In Manipur the uprising was an insurgency, launched and sustained by the local population. An insurgency can only survive if it is supported by the resident population and the insurgent post his encounter melts into the population. This entails a different approach as adopted in Kashmir, where inputs on presence of foreign militants flows to security forces. Here, the forces need to separate the insurgent from his support base, entailing anger and resentment from the local population. As insurgency across the world has shown, there is no age bar for an individual to pick up the gun or be an insurgent or militant supporter.
The army was pushed into the area by the government and tasked to regain parts of the state which had been declared as independent by insurgent groups. It resulted in large casualties to army and other agencies involved in battling the insurgency. Today, in the courts, they are being asked to justify the actions they took, without a consideration to the sacrifices they made, losses they suffered and the trauma the soldiers still face.
The government, which pushed the army in, tasked it, enabled it by imposing AFSPA, is sitting as a silent spectator, while individuals who operated in the region and brought the situation back to normalcy are being hauled over coals by the court. It is with desperation to protect their name, their task and to explain to the court of the way they operated, the trauma they encountered, that they have taken this recourse.
The army HQs in Delhi, which should have been at the forefront of protecting its soldiers appears to be silent as government sanction is not forthcoming. A rushed judgement by the court ignoring the safeguards under AFSPA would have a detrimental impact on national security in the future.
Manipur continues to remain an area of concern, with groups operating out of Myanmar. In Nagaland a fragile ceasefire holds, as talks continue for peace. Groups against the talks occasionally target the army. In Kashmir, the army is operating under similar adverse conditions battling to bring normalcy. Removing AFSPA or questioning its charter would impact the manner the army operates and provide anti-national elements and their supporters a tool to impact army’s effectiveness. The idea of a one-India itself would come under question.
The world over, every nation seeks to protect its forces whenever they operate under trying conditions. In UK, in 1972 in the Black Sunday massacre, 28 innocents were targeted by the British army in North Ireland. No soldiers were prosecuted, despite multiple enquiries being done. The government officially apologized on the incident only in 2011. The same government has granted immunity from Human Rights cases to its soldiers operating in militancy or insurgency areas. In most nations, where except for exceptional cases, armed forces personnel are protected by law while operating in such environments.
In Feb this year, children of armed forces personnel approached the National Human Rights Commission asking it to protect human rights of soldiers being targeted daily by stone-pelters. The appeal was also aimed at international human rights organizations, which have continuously criticized the Indian army for its actions. This appeal came about when army personnel to protect themselves from rampant mobs had to open fire in self-defence but were facing a FIR on the orders of the political leadership.
India as a nation is still not secure internally. It has anti-national forces seeking to break the fabric of the nation along its peripheries. Every time such a situation arises, the army is rushed in to bring back normalcy. Seeking to legally target it, would lead to self-imposed caution, which would only enhance local casualties, damage to property and be a hindrance to development. Protecting its rights and legal safeguards would ensure that the nation remains united and strong against inimical forces. This is the dilemma which the court must untangle.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army