Chandel incident and question of civilian protection

Dr DK Mangang *

The site where militants ambush at Paraolon village in Chandel District as seen on June 15 2015 :: Pix - Shankar Khangembam

Manipur was the centrestage in world politics during the Second World War. The people of the state had experienced the sufferings, sorrows and holocaust of war in the deadliest armed confrontation between the Allied Forces and Axis forces. The Japanese forces were defeated by the Allied forces represented by the British forces in the battle fought at the Red Hills (Maibam Lotpa Ching) in the Bishnupur District. No sooner than the end of the Second World War the then Asiatic sovereign state, Manipur was merged into the newly born Indian state in a very controversial manner under international law and practice. Since then, Manipur become a non- existent entity in international politics as it has lost its international personality for more than six decades. Research facilities provided in the higher educational institution and findings of the researchers reveals such truth.

It is a fact that Manipur is one of the most underdeveloped states among the Indian states for various reasons, like delay in granting statehood, lack of communications, political instability, proximity with international border, unemployment, ethnic tension among others. Such distinctive features create a fertile ground for breeding insurgency which affects the state for the last five decades. As the people of the state have been under the colonial and martial law – the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1959, their basic human rights have been violated both by the state and non state actors for decades. It was thought that the insurgency movement would naturally be wither away after the solving the problem of the NSCN (IM). However, it is proved that the perception lacks political maturity and misunderstanding of the basic historical, social, economic and political issues of the North- East particularly of Manipur.

The incident of recent attack of the combined forces of the insurgents, NSCN (K), KYKL and KCP on the Dogra Regiment of the Indian Army in the Chandel district of Manipur not only figured widely in the national media but also discussed on the matter seriously in the Narendra Modi led NDA government. For the first time in Manipur the chief of the army staff, General Dalbir Singh Suhagh immediately came in Imphal and visited the ambushed site where 18 army personnel were gunned down and eleven were injured.

Apart from condemning the incident in the strongest term, it is told that the Prime Minister of India granted permission to conduct military operation “hot pursuit” even inside the territory of Myanmar to neutralize insurgents taking shelter in that country and to destroy completely their camps inside Myanmar. As per government version reported in the newspaper, the elite Indian commandos were airdropped and successfully completed their operation within 40 minutes by killing more than 38 insurgents who were suspected to have been involved directly in the June 4 Chandel attack.

The operation conducted by the super specialist commando’s of the Indian army was directly supervised by the central government and top ranking officers of the Indian Army. The state government was unable to speak on the issue even though they were asked to commend on media and people of the state could also not have any update information as media and human rights organizations were denied access to the area for collection of information.

Later on, a high security alert has been sounded across the north – east based on the intelligence report that insurgent belonging to NSCN-K, ULFA, PLA and other groups like newly formed United Liberation Front of West South East Asia crossed Indo-Myanmar border with an intention to revenge against Indian army who conducted surgical strike on them. The newspaper published counter claims of insurgent groups, and clarification of Myanmar and Chinese authority on the question of their nexus with the insurgent groups of the North – East. It identifies the nature of conflict and shows the gravity of the situation.

It is undeniable fact that the government of India has seriously viewed the June 4 Insurgent attack in Manipur for various reasons including the potential threat to its sovereignty and military might with the possible aid of China and the future of the Act East Policy. The country is all about to engage a war with the insurgent groups in the North East.

In the meantime, it is reported that the villagers of the Chandel ambush area could not return home because of fear for torture even though the state actor assured that civilian would not be affected during and after military operation. Their apprehension is very reasonable and logical in view of the past experience of the people of Manipur. The army, paramilitary forces and state police have, in the past, frequently conducted military operations with specific name of operation like, Operation Blue Bird, Operation Sunny Valley, Operation Summer Storm, among other, in all parts of the state against the insurgent groups for the last five decades.

On the other hand, the insurgent groups have also engaged armed confrontation with the regular forces of the state. In such situation the people of the region feels unsafe and are in dilemma. It would be wrong on the part of the state actor and non state actor engaged in hostility to ignore or underestimate the genuine fear of the people of the insurgency ridden border states of India because; they may face eventualities at any time.

In this background, the life, liberty and property of the civilians who never take side in the ongoing conflict remains at stake. In search for a way out from such possible causalities people are to take refugee to the rules of international humanitarian law which are applicable during armed conflict. It is a well establish proposition of international humanitarian law that the parties to the conflict are obliged to protect civilians while conducting hostilities in all times and situations.

International humanitarian law is a part of public international law and comprises rules which seek to protect people who are not and no longer taking part in hostilities and to restrict means and method of warfare employed. The basic rules of international humanitarian law are found in the Four Geneva Conventions, 1949 and Additional Protocol I &II of 1977 and Hague Conventions 1899 &1908.

There are seven basic rules of international humanitarian law in armed conflict.

1. Person hors de combat and those who do not take direct part in hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and their morals and physical integrity. They shall in all circumstances be protected and treated humanely without any adverse distinction.

2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.

3. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. Protection also covers medical personnel, establishments, transports and equipment. The emblem of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent is the sign of such protection and must be respected.

4. Captured combatants and civilians under the authority of an adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity and personal rights and convictions. They shall be protected against all acts and violence and reprisals. They shall have the right ot correspond with their families and to receive relief.

5. Everyone shall be entitled to benefit from fundamental judicial guarantees. No one shall be held responsible for an act he has not committed. No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.

6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare. It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.

7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.

These are some important basic principles of international humanitarian law which are bound to the conflicting parties and applicable at the time of armed conflict. Unfortunately, these rules are ignored both by state actor and non state actors for the last many years while conducting hostilities by giving their own justification which may not be acceptable by general prudent men.

The present and past government never accepted the existence of armed conflict in its territory instead, it is categorized as mere a law and order problem to be solely dealt with the criminal law of the country. The gravity of the recent attack of insurgents against Indian army which resulted in the death of 18 army personnel and injuring nearly a dozen and the nature of government response to the attack raises new questions as to the identification of the nature of conflict in the North – East India.

If the intensity of the present conflict is going on, both the parties are required to abide by the rules of international humanitarian law so as to mitigate the suffering of the conflict particularly the civilians. Those who violate the basic rules relating to international humanitarian law may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court eastablished under the Rome Statute, 1998 on the ground of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Prosecution and sentence for 14 years imprisonment of rebel leader of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thomas Lubanga Dyhilo for committing war crimes is the case to the point.

On top of it, India has to abide by the rules of international humanitarian law laid down in the Four Geneva Conventions, 1948 pertaining to the protection of civilians as she has signed and ratified the International document. On the other hand, the unilateral declaration of some insurgent groups of the north- east India to abide by the rules of international humanitarian law itself is a wel-come state step for the safety of civilians.

It is a well defined proposition of law that human rights and humanitarian law are the two sides of a coin. However, the implementation of the provisions of human rights enshrined in the international human rights documents and the constitution of India is less effective whereas, the implementation of rules relating to humanitarian law is more effective for the protection of civilians in the armed conflict situation.

In view of the unwarranted war like situation being experienced by the people living in the extreme corner of the country coupled with sharing of long international border with Myanmar all the stakeholders has to play pro- active role for the safety and protection of civilians. State, as the protector and guarantor of basic rights of men like, right to life, liberty and property, need to be taken up concrete and tangible initiative for protection of civilians at the earliest.

State in consultation with the neutral humanitarian body like International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), may initiate steps for opening an office for ICRC in the Conflict ridden North East India. The Manipur University or other educational Institution may also open a Center for humanitarian law not only for disseminating the basic rules relating to international humanitarian law to the people but also for providing an academic forum for discussion on various issues of such branch of public international law. The value of such a small center in the Manipur University would be not less important than the establishment of Cultural University and Sports University for the people and for future of the state.