DR. S. AUSAF SAIED VASFI delves deep into the disquieting situation prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir, the Government’s efforts to bring it back to normalcy, and the immunity our security forces enjoy, and pleads for total withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.
In the light of various responses, till date from the Valley, the question is: Will the Centre agree to the total withdrawal or partial dilution or some significant amendments to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA)? This brings us to the question: What the Act is and what are its un-human and inhuman clauses that run into the face of the universally acknowledged human rights? Add to it the eyebrow-raising rather disturbing new assertiveness of the security forces which, to some observers, amounts to intervention in the political process.
As we rush to the Press, the casualty figure in Jammu and Kashmir stands at 99. By the time these lines appear in print, the all-party delegation, scheduled to visit the bleeding Valley, would have returned with fresh ideas and submitted its findings to the Government. The 2-day visit, ending on September 21, would have apprised the politicians of the feedback from the suffering Kashmiris.
As there is no consensus on the various issues among the national parties, the plural nation has been given to understand that the strategy to salvage the situation in the strife-torn State would be prepared in the light of the inputs of the study trip by the people’s representatives.
Is it possible?
The political observers have genuine apprehensions in this regard. Before dealing with the subject let it be noted that after the September 15 all-party, 5-hour long discussion, it appeared as if our political representatives are now really serious about the crisis in the problem State. Otherwise till then, only the bullets were speaking, which sadly enough continue to do so.
SHOW MAGNANIMITY
In the meeting Mrs. Sonia Gandhi delivered a humane speech. So did the Prime Minister. Mrs. Gandhi’s speech is like a whiff of fresh breeze and is full of ideas, compassion and points of future course of action. She stressed the need of turning the searchlight inwards. “Why is there so much anger?” she asked and added: the Kashmiri young generation has grown up amidst “conflict and brutality”. Their legitimate aspirations must be responded and a “magnanimous approach should be adopted to give them hope.” Underlining the need of “healing touch, accommodation and reconciliation”, the elegant lady underscored the importance of dialogue and partnership.
Dr. Manmohan Singh earlier set the rancour-free tone of the meeting and reiterated his willingness for talks with anybody in a peaceful atmosphere.
Blunt as usual, the Left parties said: There should be accountability for the security forces and action should be taken on excesses.
The Saffron stood like a rock against granting autonomy and dilution of the controversial Act. It was expected of them and nobody was surprised at their stridency bordering on bellicosity.
WHO STANDS WHERE
The key issue is the diabolical Act. According to the party position on the subject, the BJP, the BSP, the Shiv Sena and the Samajwadi Party as well as AIADMK are opposed to the withdrawal or any tinkering with the AFSPA, while the other parties including the PDP, the LJP, the JD(U), NF and the four Left parties are for revocation of the AFSPA.
Ms. Mahbooba Mufti, who is dead set against “cosmetic changes” in the said Act, made it known last week that her party could be a better and more acceptable alternative to the National Conference. The PDP patron Mufti Muhammad Sayeed held meetings with Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh.
On the other hand, rightly sensing danger, to him and his son Dr. Farooq Abdullah made various calls on everybody who is somebody. The so-called “yuvraj” made it public as Mr. Omar Abdullah was doing a “tough job”, he must be given “time”. That has for the time being given him and his father a reprieve. But Mr. Omar is also against the draconian law.
OPERATIVE PARTS OF THE ACT
Have a glance at the operative parts of the Act: Section 4 of the Act defines the special powers that Armed Forces deployed in disturbed areas enjoy: Part (a) says that any officer can fire upon or otherwise use force even to the causing of death on any person, if the officer thinks that the person is violating the law.
Part (b) says that any officer can destroy structures from which armed attacks are being made or even likely to be made or where armed gangs or absconders may be hiding.
Part (c) gives the officer powers to arrest without warrant any person who has committed a cognisable offence or about whom there is reasonable suspicion.
Part (d) authorises officers to enter any premises to arrest a suspect and seize any material that they think may be stolen.
In both (c) and (d), the officer is free to use whatever force is necessary. The officers acting under AFSPA are given complete immunity from any legal proceedings by Section 6 of the Act.
In the North East and in Jammu and Kashmir the locals have opposed the Act alleging that it has been grossly misused by the armed forces and innocent people are being harassed and arrested.
Make at least three readings of Section 4, Part (c) and Part (d) to understand the disquieting gamut of the security forces discretion. In the given situation the officer is supposed to be dealing with – not an invader or a renegade or a rebel or any enemy of the country but the Indian citizen. He is not supposed to be at war in a war theatre. He is supposed to be dealing with local, indigenous, misguided taxpayers of Bharat. The human rights activists fail to digest the carte blanche that the Army officer enjoys. He can fire upon, use force causing death, arrest without warrant. All this appears to be unpalatable to those who have been born in a democratic atmosphere.
When the security officers talk of “legal protection” while performing their duty, they simply mean to say they should not be prosecuted for murder in any court of law. Aren’t they asking for too much? See the question in “in India” context. There are possibilities of wrong or false or fake use of discretion on the part of our otherwise well-meaning and upright officers. He, like all human beings, can also succumb to baser instincts like prejudice or just bias. How an Indian citizen’s unjustified murder can go unpunished by a court of law passes our commonsense.
To our wise judiciary even an under-trial, a suspect, a murderer, an infiltrator from across the border has human rights. This humane spirit pervades the country.
THREAT OF AUTONOMY
Repeated postponement of a firm political decision on Jammu and Kashmir has levelled the ground for some security chiefs to cross their traditional limits. They now appear to be violating the proverbial “Laxman Rekha”. For example, Gen. V.K. Singh, the Army Chief, is of the opinion: “The basic reason (for the Kashmir situation) has been that we haven’t been able to build up on gains made over a period of time… The situation has been brought to a level (by security forces) when other initiatives should have started. All those who ask for AFSPA’s dilution or withdrawal, probably do so for narrow political games.
The Air Chief Marshal, Mr. P.V. Naik opines: “A soldier involved in performing his duty deserves all the legal protection that he can get.”
Some political observers have read between-the-lines in these observations a subtle effort at an avoidable intervention in political affairs.
Need we warn our political class against armocracy that emerges out of the barrel.
We say AFSPA must go lock, stock and barrel.