Not qualified as encounters : Catching the wrong arm of the law ?
- Sangai Express Editorial :: April 5, 2013 -
Not exactly open and shut case. But the 'do not qualify to be called encounter' observation made by the Supreme Court instituted three member Inquiry Commission, is significant.
'How can a 14 year old boy be called a terrorist ?', 'Is there a war out there ?' 'People are dying, do something' to now, 'does not qualify to be called encounter' and so far all the rounds have gone in favour of the Extra-Judicial Execution Victims' Association, Manipur, or EEVFAM in short.
'Do not qualify to be called encounter' and stretch this a little bit without twisting its meaning and it could well amount to saying that all the six cases were 'fake encounters'.
The final word is yet to be said with the next hearing fixed on April 9 and it may be sub-judice to further comment on the matter.
What however cannot miss the eye is the observation of the Inquiry Commission that 'there is no established fact that the victims have criminal records. 'This is extremely significant.
Will it be a case of the long arm of the law catching up with the wrong arm of the law or will the findings of the Inquiry Commission end up like the other Inquiry Commissions which have been set up earlier, such as the C Upendra Judicial Inquiry Commission set up to probe the killing of Th Manorama in 2004.
Will it go the way of the Jeevan Reddy Commission, with the Government sleeping over its recommendations ? A difference, however, can be discerned here.
Unlike the other Inquiry Commissions mentioned above, the 3 member Inquiry Commission headed by Justice (Retd) Santosh Hegde has come at the instance of the Supreme Court and not the Government.
Perhaps it is this difference on which the petitioners and the people may expect something positive.
Only time can tell and if at all there is a lesson to be learnt from the 1528 alleged fake encounter cases listed by the EEVFAM, then it is that the common people of Manipur have been at the receiving end of the security personnel, including the State police for ages.
Armed Forces Special Powers Act or not, the observation of the Inquiry Commission should have a sobering impact on the men in uniform.
During the cross examination during the Imphal leg of the hearing, the counsels for the petitioners made it a point to question the security personnel on whether they realised that the area in which the six cases took place fell under the denotified territory, that is areas where the Army Act is no longer enforced.
A question which may appear routine but pregnant with meaning and significance. This very poser raised frequently by the counsels for the petitioners indicates that the sense of immunity and impunity granted to the men in uniform goes well beyond the question of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.
Such a mindset may be read against the July 23, 2009, BT road incident, which paralysed Imphal and other parts of the State for months. The swagger, the arrogance, the bully mentality have all sprung from this mindset.
Institutionalising a culture and a trend where the State becomes the oppressor rather than the protector. Not good going for Delhi and Imphal, especially in this age when the world has come to be increasingly understood as a global village.
Six cases out of 1528 alleged fake encounters and this may just open the floodgates and expose more likely skeletons in the cupboard of the Government.
Says something about the standard line, 'Signalled to stop but instead troops were fired upon. Two killed in retaliatory firing.'
* Comments posted by users in this discussion thread and other parts of this site are opinions of the individuals posting them (whose user ID is displayed alongside) and not the views of e-pao.net. We strongly recommend that users exercise responsibility, sensitivity and caution over language while writing your opinions which will be seen and read by other users. Please read a complete Guideline on using comments on this website.