Chutzpah or AFSPA: Demystifying the Act
In his K Subramanyam Memorial Lecture on February 6, 2013 at the IDSA, Mr Chidambaram alleged helplessness in his ability to revoke the AFSPA saying, "The present and former army chiefs have taken a strong position that the act should not be amended or taken back." Sanjoy Hazarika's quick observation in his report "An abomination called AFSPA" in the Hindu, of February 12, 2013, "Like a clever politician, he tossed the issue squarely into the lap of the army and the MoD put the statement in perspective. On November 14, 2014 again, Mr Chidambaram, welcoming the life sentence of five army personnel in the Machil fake encounter case in Jammu and Kashmir, called "AFSPA an obnoxious law that has no place in a modern, civilised country", a politicisation that the environment must review.
The recent militant strike in Arnia, not just rebuts such proclamations but seriously questions party manifestos and political calls for revocation of AFSPA.
The Act
For those unaware of the background, in 1951, the Naga National Council (NNC) voted for a "free sovereign Naga nation", and formed "The federal government of Nagaland", led to this act bring promulgated on March 22, 1956, by President Dr Rajendra Prasad conferring special powers upon armed forces in "disturbed areas" in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. This was extended to Jammu and Kashmir, and then later to Punjab on October 6, 1983 to combat militancy.
National Security
The NNC rebellion in the Northeast in 1960's, was quickly followed by Operation Gibralter in 1965 by Pakistan to stoke JKLP (Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Party), the first and only militant group established in Kashmir to advocate secession from India.
Pakistan exploited the environment post-India's elections in 1987, and worked to establish major groups as Hizbul-Mujahideen, Harqat-Ul Ansar and LeT, to proliferate pan-Islamic Pakistan nationalism. Repeated events in the period ever since may refresh magnitude of challenges to national sovereignty addressed by the security forces.
Recent comments by Sanjoy Hazarika and Thangkhanlan Ngaite have suggested a significant decline in the levels in actions by militant groups and the calls for independence, and hence the growing irrelevance of the AFSPA; an acknowledgement of the success in addressing insurgencies.
Armed Forces' Perspective
Three commissions, Jeevan Reddy Commission, 2004, Justice Verma Commission, 2012 and the more recent Santosh Hegde Commission, 2013 have remained unimplemented and some, even unpublished by the then government. Strangely, a Supreme Court review by a constitution five-judge bench in a case titled "Naga People's Movement of Human Rights vs Union of India", after elaborately dealing with the challenge to the legality of deployment of the armed forces in aid to civil power, and having unambiguously ruled that AFSPA cannot be regarded as a colourable legislation or a fraud on the constitution or be held arbitrary or violative of Article 14, 19 or 21 of the constitution, is often disregarded.
The increasing transparency in such operations and a paradigm shift of invocation of justice as in recent Machil case, are indicators of intent to uphold both the spirit of the AFSPA as also honour and dignity of our countrymen in these disturbed areas.
Political Endemic
It was under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's leadership that the decisions for bombings in Mizoram on March 5, 1966 and launch of Operation Blue Star in June 1984 were undertaken in national interest. If AFSPA had been operational before these movements escalated, these operations may have been avoided.
Two recent occasions where the previous government seriously considered but retracted from acceding to demands of withdrawal of AFSPA are relevant in this context.
First, on September 14, 2010, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) after an urgent all-party meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, attended by defence minister AK Antony and home minister P Chidambaram among others as Kashmir witnessed a sudden flare-up in violence, made no mention to the AFSPA.
Second, in a meeting on March 14, 2013, in a heated debate in the Parliament after killing of five CRPF jawans, home minister Mr Shinde's figures of 220 incidents in 2013 as a significant reduction from 1990 in 2005 was grossly flawed drawing flak from the BJP who strongly objected to the proposal and impressed upon continuation of the AFSPA. Calls by Omar Abdullah and Salman Soz for revocation of AFSPA and its inclusion in political manifestos, despite serious indicators of looming IS threat in our western neighbourhood, play politics over reality.
Concluding Comments
The Centre or the state can withdraw the AFSPA anytime, anywhere, wholly or partially, with responsibility to carry the onus of not just law and order, but national security in the larger context.
While political interjections as those by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2010, and by the BJP in 2013 will stand testimony of commitment in national interest, castigation of the AFSPA and armed forces adds up to a political endemic that not just may confuse the voter, but inflict much harm to national security and integrity.
India's counter-insurgency operations have continued to face a sustained campaign of de-legitimation in areas under the AFSPA for political gains. Deliberate misstatements may be endemic in politics, but in trivializing the debate, moral and legal arguments may weaken the resolve and outcome of such operations.
National security for India is paramount and deserves strong political will and guidance that we see finally arriving. Towards this, it is relevant that AFSPA and our armed forces do not get demonised.
A clear perception of the AFSPA will help the wary voter reject loose chaff fired for political gain.