Irom Sharmila vs AFSPA: the Right vs the Good ?

Jeremiah Amai Veino Duomai *

Irom Sharmila on March 03 2013 :: Pix - Deepak Oinam

The difference between sacrifice and suicide is that the former act is committed to the good of others whereas the latter is for oneself. Oftentimes great men and women are those who gave up their lives so that others may live a dignified life. They sacrifice their happiness and even life so that others or perhaps the next generation may lead a flourishing life.

Irom Sharmila is committed to doing away AFSPA through fasting though this act of political protest may consume her life. Her vision for undertaking such a painstaking task is to let this generation and their children avoid being killed and brutalised for a political vision they are not willing to die for. However, this is exactly the opposite of what the government conceived of, and thus put her on house arrest for allegedly attempting to commit suicide.

Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) was initially designed and implemented to tackle the Nagas in the 1950s. Over the years, the Act has been extended to other parts of the country. One of the clauses that has been criticised again and again is the section 4(a) , which states that 'if 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 fire - arms, ammunition or explosive substances'1 The clause is defensible at face value. After all the clause seems to mean only for those who are enemies of the Indian government.

If the army had engaged the armed underground militants or their primary sympathisers or informers, providing full immunity even for an action leading to the death of the 'enemy' would be defensible. Killing armed personels in a war or war-like situation is a defencible action; or killing primary sympathiser of the 'enemy' is fairly defencible as well. The ugly side of the Act emerges when the army personnels who act far beyond the limit set by the Act are given full immunity.

The entire community of the 'disturbed area' cannot be labelled as 'enemy' upon whom the army can legitimately use force. Yet this is exactly what the Act entails. It is important to categorise the civilian population as primary sympathisers and secondary sympathisers. Civilians who act as active informants can come under the category of primary sympathisers; general population who support through taxation and ration alone must be placed under secondary category.

Even in a full-fledged war, general population who show sympathy and support to the army through taxation and ration must be distinguished from the active informants, let alone the armed personnels. Given this need to categorise the civilian population, immunity given to the army when it is the engaging with the secondary sympathisers beyond the permissible limit set by the AFSPA is not morally permissible.

Irom Sharmila's hunger strike began in 2000 because of such killing of the general population who would not come under the category of armed underground militants or primary sympathisers. Her protest has been reinforced by the fact that Supreme Court probe panel has said in its report that individuals with no criminal record has been killed by the paramillitary forces in Manipur where AFSPA has been in place since 1958. Providing full immunity to the armed personnels for such kind of killing – or rather, murder – or rape or fake encounter has to be done away with to ensure a life of dignity and freedom to the general populaton of the 'disturbed area'.

The response to the protest against AFSPA is that it is necessary to maintain national security. The present avatar of the Act cannot be modified either because that would damage the confidence of the army personnel. Thus when the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir raised his voice against this draconian law, the army General put his foot down and let this quasi-military regime continue in the 'disturbed area'.

The question that one would pose at such moment is whether someone's vision of the good can justify another person's life being ruined and destroyed. In the name of national security, can the army rape and kill innocent civilians and get away with it? There are quite a lot of right of a person that can be legitimately suppressed and subdued for the greater good of the society at large.

For example, if it would result in bringing down extreme income inequality it would be fair to tax part of the money earned by the rich to give to the poor. Income tax such as this in one sense violates the rich man's right to possess what he earns; yet for the greater good that might be achieved, this measure is justified. However, rape or killing of innocent people in the name of AFSPA is a violation of so basic a right to a dignified life that the argument of a greater good that might come about cannot be plausibly used to justify such atrocities.

In the name of AFSPA too many crimes against humanity have been committed, and it is time that this is put to stop. Unless this draconian law is repealed, the rumour circulating in the ground – such as, the army personnels continue to intentionally create low-intensity warfare at the expense of the local people – will continue, maintaining a disdain towards the army, let alone the army effort the maintain good relation with the local population bearing much fruit.

If army personnels committing atrocities on unarmed and innocent civilians ought not to be given immunity, by similar token, the armed underground organisations militant as well are not exempted from the moral demand to spare the unarmed and innocent civilians. To that end planting bombs in public places or selectively targetting innocent migrant workers cannot be justified as living up to a true revolutionary principle.

Deliberate and systematic use of terror in a sustained manner on innocent civilians to achieve certain political objective is what constitutes terrorism. Therefore, state or non-state actors taking the unarmed civilians for granted in their quest for certain political end has to be labelled terrorist.

In his magisterial and possibly the most influential moral and political book of the previous century 'A Theory of Justice', John Rawls rightly argues that the right is prior to the good. I fancy that had Rawls been around today, he would have a word of praise or a visit to Iche in support of her fight against human right violation by the armed personnels of the biggest democracy in the world. The good of the larger polity cannot trump the right – the human right – of a section of the people. Doing so is morally wrong, and it is high time that Government of India sets its corrective measures into action.