Prison houses and Valleys of torture
Structural State-sponsored violence in Kashmir and North East India
- Part 1 -

Devika Mittal *

Jan Karwan, from Srinagar to Imphal for Repeal AFSPA at Imphal on Oct 27 2011 :: Pix - Bullu Raj

Abstract: Violence is seen to upset "normalcy". But what happens when violence becomes the state of normalcy. This is the situation in Kashmir and the states of North East India. In these states of India, the Government has imposed heavy militarisation under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act or AFSPA. AFSPA has led to extra judicial killings, torture and gang-rape. There is everyone violence in the name of upholding the "integrity of the nation". How do we then view violence?

"When I first came here and saw policemen with lathis, instead of AK-47, I was surprised. Back home, they are stationed at every corner of the street, armed with AK-47", he said to me. He had migrated to Delhi from Manipur.

In a layman language, Violence is defined as something that disturbs the physical and mental well-being of an individual. It upsets the state of normalcy. This definition explains the demand for stricter punishment, even capital punishment to punish the culprit for upsetting the order of the society. But what do we say about the AFSPA-imposed states where arbitrary military rule and torture defines the "normalcy", the everyday?

As this statement states, violence is not easy to be defined or even as Nancy Schepher-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois argued, not easy to be categorized. "It can be everything and nothing; legitimate and illegitimate, visible or invisible; necessary or useless, senseless and gratuitous or utterly relational and strategic. It is in the eye of beholder" (2004) Another important point regarding violence is that even though it can happen to anyone, anywhere and in any form, there are some sections that are more prone to violence than others. This is explained in the concept of "Structural Violence", a term coined by Johan Galtung. Structural Violence identifies several axes of violence or certain sections of the society that are more prone to violence than others.

Paul Farmer (2003), based on his study on the contemporary Haiti, had identified the axes of gender and sexuality, race/ethnicity, poverty and political status. Even within these axes, there are some identities who will suffer more than others. Besides their other identity prone to violence, women often tend to suffer more than men. A point re-iterated by Philip Bourgois in his study of everyday violence in El Barrio (2003).

Added to this, is also the concept of "Everyday Violence". Arthur Kleinman is a major contributor to this notion. "Everyday violence, principally for poor but also for other classes, does violence to the body and to the moral experience. It normalizes violence." She has, in her article "The Violence of Everyday Life", talked about the everyday experience and normalized violence in situations of political violence (2000). This article is, thus, useful to my own attempt here.

Another important dimension of violence or the critique of violence is, as Walter Benjamin (1968), argued that violence is used for legal means and ends. It is solely to be used by the legal authorities to control violence. However, there is little distinction between this legitimate and illegitimate violence and this is what forms the basis of this piece.

So through this piece, I attempt to describe the structural and everyday violence that people in the AFSPA-imposed states suffer. AFSPA or Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 is a law to combat insurgency and ensure national security. However, in effect, it has led to human rights violation. In doing so, I will also attempt to re-iterate some of the arguments on violence. In the conclusion, I will summarise and will also try to answer the place of structural and everyday violence in understanding the discourse on violence and suffering.

AFSPA in the World's largest Democracy

The independence of India was followed by a rigorous process of nation-building. Independent India had more than 500 princely states whose status was yet to be decided. While some chose Pakistan, others had to choose between India and a sovereign status. Many states had peacefully joined India. The trouble came in with some states demanding a sovereign status, among them was Kashmir and the North-east states.

The history and conflict of Kashmir is well-known. There were strong claims to it from both India and Pakistan, even though the Kashmiris had hoped for a sovereign state. The Maharaj of Kashmir had signed a merger treaty with India with certain conditions, one of them being that the Kashmiris will be given the right to self determination but this never happened. The claims of Pakistan had also not receded, making the state of Kashmir the "disturbed" state. In a similar vein, there were movements for self-determination in the North east. However, all of them were suppressed and the states were integrated into the Indian Union.

But the use of coercive and arbitrary power was not limited to this. In order to safeguard the 'integrity' of the Indian Union and "national security", the law of Armed Forces Special Powers Act or AFSPA was introduced in 1958. This law was extended to all the seven states of North East – Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh and to the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The bare act of the law states:

Section (4) Special powers of the armed forces - any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces may, in a disturbed area –

(a) if he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning as he may consider necessary fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of firearms, ammunition or explosive substances;

(b) If he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified positions or shelter from which armed attacks are made or are likely to be made or are attempted to be made, or any structure used as training camp for armed volunteers or utilized as a hideout by armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offence.

(c) Arrest, without warrant any person who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence and may use such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest.

(d) Enter and search without warrant any premises to make any such arrest as afore said or to recover any person believed to be wrongfully restrained or confined or any property reasonably suspected to be stolen property or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be unlawfully kept in such premises, and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

(5) Arrested persons to be made over to the police: Any person arrested and taken into custody under this Act shall be made over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest.

(6) Protection to persons acting under the Act: No prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the central government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act.

As we can infer from these sections, they allow torture and killing of a mere suspect and more importantly, it grants legal immunity to the officers. This constitutional law, ironically, violates many of the other laws in the constitution. It violates the Constitutional Articles 14 Right to Equality, Article 21 of Right to Life and 22 of Right to Constitutional Remedies.

This deems the Act unconstitutional. It violates not only the constitution but the rights that are secured even in the state of emergency. AFSPA has led to violation of human rights in the AFSPA-imposed areas and has disrupted everyday life. The next section deals with this.

But before we take a look at the stories of everyday violence in these states, it is important to know an important strand in the many debates around the validity of AFSPA. It is argued that the introduction of law, especially in Manipur, was completely baseless. There was no violent insurgent group when this law was passed, after 3 hours of discussion in the parliament, in 1958. The first insurgent group in Manipur had emerged in 1970s.

(To be continued)