"Man is not for law but law is made for men"
- Part 3 -

By Seram Rojesh *

Again, here in this statement, "But has the repealing made Imphal a safer place or more unsafe? Readers may draw their own conclusions because maximum numbers of kidnappings, extortions, bomb attacks, grenade attacks etc are reported from that area."

As a reader, I draw some questions; kidnapping and extortion are very much happening in Mumbai by many underworld organizations. Then are you mean that Mumbai should be declared "disturbed"? Bombs attacks and Grenades Attacks are happening in most of the Indian Cities including, Mumbai, Delhi, Ahamadabad, Jaipur, then are you saying that this cities should be handed over to the Indian Armed forces by declaring "disturbed".

Why nobody is talking about the Imposition of the AFSPA in these cities if it is to deal with Bomb blast by the terrorist or criminals? My argument is AFSPA is nothing to do with these bomb blast or kidnapping or extortion. APSPA is very political and it is to suppress the people of the region who are categorized as an enemy or "other" within the state "as a potential threat and disloyal to the Indian State".

My submission to the ideas, as the author is trying to express that, it is the situation that compels to impose AFSPA as he says, "The writer is not canvassing for AFSPA but there is need to introspect and arrive at a point when the state does not feel the necessity to declare the area as disturbed. Part III and IV of Indian Constitution deal with fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy"; you don't need at all to declare an area as disturbed because it is very much against the principles of Humanity and existence of the people.

Situation in Manipur today, is the product of this very undemocratic and oppressive politics of Indian State and its act. State will always feel the necessity of this act because state still suspect the people of their loyalty. That is why, from the 50 years ago from now, Nehru and his people made this law without suspending the fundamental rights of the Indian constitution given to the people of India excluding the areas under "disturbed areas" including Manipur. That is the reason, where there has been always the question by the state and its machinery; what would happen after AFSPA repeal? " Deshka Kya Hoga?"

One could argue that when the act was passed, in Manipur there was no fully organized force that really contesting "the Idea of India" but today there has been many strong forces who are contesting the "Idea of India". The perception of threat from Manipur to the Indian State is much bigger than from the perception of the threat in 1950s because there is an emergence of the powerful extra state in Manipur.

Nordstrom says in her book" shadow of war" as "Looking at the history of extra state groups defeating the colonial world, people have learnt that the extra state is the most powerful way of challenging the state and combating a superpower".

The scholar like Jef Huysmans observes that the community does not just face danger, representing a possibility of death, but is indebted to danger for its own very existence. Death is not external to the community but is an excess upon which the communities' existence relies (see also Dillon, 1996: 67). In this line Indian state could argue that the existence of Manipur and its people are the danger of the Indian state.

Jee Huysmans refers how threat definitions define the political community and possibly also legitimate the survival of the political elite (Waver, 1995: 54-7). Jef Huysmans, in work on "Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier", University of Kent, says "A revolutionary state is figured as the enemy of the existing order, i.e. state. Revolutionary states are more threatening the state than any other enemy state.

This 'stronger' kind of enemy is more significant because it allows the state to articulate both its identity as a political unit and the identity of the international order within which it is a unit. Strangers are both inside and outside a society; they are insiders/outsiders.

Different from enemies, strangers are disordering because they express the possibility of chaos from within the existing order (pg.15) one could also imagine a revolutionary state taking the position of stranger rather than enemy. It would require that it be recognized as a member of an international order while embodying a revolutionary force which aims at overthrowing the order".

Hence, the existence of Manipur itself and the emergences of revolutionary state are becoming more threatened to the Indian state and its existence and vise versa. So, it does not make any sense since the article, "TTT" was saying, that "There is need to change our mind set from only self welfare to societal welfare. There is need to create conditions for repealing the hated act and there should be no need to impose it ever".

As, the article "TTT" says "Article 21 reads; "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law". There is need of whole hearted contribution by law makers, law keepers and society at large to uphold the spirit of the said article." Unfortunately, this very basic right to life of the people who are under the shadow of AFSPA has been completely denied by the Indian State.

Kepferer says, "The state, then, is determined through the autonomy of the people and in effect is subordinate to and included within the people." (Kepferer: 1988:168)

He also says that, "The state is not a moral entity unless it is embodied in the people and the nation. The State is not necessarily immoral and evil but it can virtually become so when it moves into encompassing, an incorporative position. In other words, the state becomes threatening and destructive when it denies its determination in individual and in nation." (Kepferer: 1988:179).

In Australian thought, if the state or other agents and institutions of potentially supra individual power, such as corporate organizations, individuals farms, and bureaucracies, begin to assert there power in such a way as to deny autonomy and be irreducible to the qualities of individual and the nation, they risk identification as morally evil and become the legitimate objects of resistance, after violent. The people can assert their inherent morality even against the State - (Kepferer: 1988:179).

Indian state has no any legitimacy when the state itself denies the existence of the people within the shadow of the AFSPA and its "oppressive politics'. AFSPA is only a visible example of Indian Oppression and subjugation. We would always remember that "Man is not for law but law is made for men".

If laws become a threat to the 'Men' itself then that laws should be thrown away including the system if the system doesn't allow for changing it, because system is also made and protected for the people.

Concluded