AFSPA as "Another 9/11"
- Reality beyond rhetoric and dubious knowledge of ground reality -

Angomcha Bimol Akoijam *

Black Day Observation on AFSPA at Delhi University, Arts Faculty, Main Gate on 11th September 2011 . Organized by Manipur Students' Association Delhi (MSAD) :: Pix by Luwang Shinyen

It seems, for most Manipuris, one Anna's fast is all that they need to discover that "9/11", the date when terror struck the United States in 2001 is also the date AFSPA became a "law" in 1958. Consequently this year, civil society groups came together to mark the day whe-rein "another act of terror" began by organising public meetings in Manipur and Delhi. This happens now despite the fact that the Act came in 1958 and the meaning that "9/11" has come to acquire happened in 2001.

Incidentally, in 2008 that marked the 50th year of AFSPA, the date was marked with some low key events in Imphal and Delhi attended by a negligible crowd. But there has never been such an acknowledgement of the coincidence between the two 9/11 before Anna's fast this year.

Although one is tempted to say, better late than never, one can't help but ask: What is the significance of marking such a date? Or is it another occasion to repeat the same old slogans and arguments, as it were, dictated primarily by Human Rights concerns and informed by narrow juridical perspectives which have allowed the AFSPA to go on without giving it a fundamental challenge to its foundation?

Beyond Rhetoric of Legal Arguments

9/11 of 1958 must remind us of the fact that AFSPA came as a product of a political "decision" by the executive (ie as an ordinance on 22nd May, 1958), which also subsequently escaped more or less unscathed from the "legislative oversight function" of a democratically constituted Parliament on 18 August, 1958.

It is in this regard, 9/11 reminds us of another political decision: rather than returning the legislation to the Parliament again for reconsideration, the President readily gave his assent on the legislation, thus making it into a law on 11 September, 1958.

Significantly, after this "special" law survived the judicial scrutiny in 1997 as the Supreme Court upheld its "constitutionality", the Act did return to the political domain once more as a consequence of the upheaval in Manipur in 2004. And yet, the political premise of the Act has never been the primary concern of the protest against the Act.

Quite oblivious of the historicity of the political decisions and the ways in which the Act has escaped the judicial scrutiny in 1997, repeating the same old legal arguments, bereft of any attempt to expose the deeply problematic aspects of its juridico-political foundations and politics which has given birth to and sustained the Act all this while, has been a major lacuna of the movement against AFSPA.

Take for instance the argument that the power to shoot has been given to the Non Commission Officer. Will it be acceptable if the same power is to be given to the JCOs or the Commission Officers? In fact, this argument on NCOs clearly shows that those who oppose and those who support the Act share the same frame of reference: That is, AFSPA is an instrument of maintaining "law and order"!

To think of it, this reality speaks of the success of those who have declared a war on people by disguising that declaration as a juridical measure to maintain law and order.

Indeed, the military paradigm and activities which are in line with war activities, something that one can easily see in the "bare act" of AFSPA, has been successfully camouflaged by this "legal fiction" called AFSPA so much so that both the proponents and adversaries of this Act discuss those activities as if they are to do with "law and order" than "war".

Having seduced to looking at the Act as an instrument of "law and order" maintenance, this naked truth doesn't seem to have hit those who oppose the Act even when Supreme Court says that an NCO is capable of carrying out the activities/power given in the Act! Consequently, rather than exposing the problematic aspects of the Act and its political decisions, the same old legal arguments are repeated even today like hollow rhe-toric, that too, often backed by claims of dubious knowledge of "ground reality" (such as citing the killings carried out by Manipur Police as a case of AFSPA).

Tragedy of De-Linking Political Issue

One basic issue that has been relegated, with serious consequences, has been the issue of what this Act is for? All legislations are to address some realities/phenomena in our real world. Acts on dowry, sati, child-marriage, for that matter the recent talk of Lok Pal, all are (about) legislations to address or fight realities of our life (the menace of dowry, sati, child-marriage or corruption). The discussions or debates on these legislations are not carried out by de-linking these realities. If so, what is that AFSPA is fundamentally seeking to address?

The Act addresses a reality in our real world, that is, armed insurgency which purportedly threatens the "national security" (ie undermining the territorial integrity and constitutional order of the Indian State). In Manipuri, that phenomenon is called "khutlai paiba lalhouba" (or "armed rebellion"; here it must be noted that "insurgency" is a synonym for "rebellion").

And yet, the Supreme Court Judgment has categorically insisted that the "disturbed condition" wherein the Act has been enforced is not due to "armed rebellion". It even says that the said "condition" does not constitute a threat to the "security of the nation"! If the Act is not about the "disturbed condition" related to "khutlai paiba lalhouba" (or "armed rebellion") or it doesn't threaten the national security, what is it?

Having failed to address or remained ignorant of such basic questions, many have failed to understand the Act itself. For instance, the violence which is being exercised by the State through AFSPA is fundamentally based on or derived from the violence to "institute order" rather than "violence to preserve order". The AFSPA is a violence to institute "Indian-ness" or the legitimacy of "Indian State" in specific areas and their inhabitants wherein the "Indian-ness" are problematic.

That is why the Act has not been imposed in all those areas that have "armed insurgency". It is imposed only in those places wherein "Indian-ness" has become problematic for the Indian State (Northeast, Kashmir, and briefly Punjab), not in those areas wherein "Indian-ness" has not been seen as a problem as such, albeit affected by armed insurgency (ie leftist insurgency in "mainland" India).

Besides, having failed to understand the nature of the political premise and its violence which is invoked by the AFSPA, many have also failed to understand that the reason behind the use of the military forces (which has the ultimate physical force for the "institution of order") rather than the police (which exercise the violence to preserve/main order) runs deeper than the issue of whether the police forces can handle the situation or not.

Indeed, had it been a question of "law and order", either the police forces would have been readied long time back for the job or the military would not have also objected to the restraints on power which are typically imposed on those who perform the duty of maintaining "law and order" under the normative and institutional imperatives of a democratic order.

Unfortunately, the delinking of the political premise of the AFSPA has allowed the subversion of a civilised democratic life while simultaneously strengthening the denial and distortions of the nature of the historically rooted (and contemporary) socio-political issues that affect our collective life for decades.

Consequently, our capacity to address and deal with our troubled situation in an informed, honest, purposeful and realistic manner has also been seriously jeopardised