The Paralyser - No human rights...AFSPA 1958

dux7luwang *

What can be more dreadful than this act which robs all the rights of livelihood of the whole North East and Jammu & Kashmir? A blessing in disguise for the armed forces, they venerate it like a holy protector and every word like the words of Bible.

Could it be tinged with a lacy touch of sanity and humanness? Could the centre draw a line of judicious parity between the armed forces and the third estate? This is the recent question which very lately pops up in the minds of the centre.

The act was amended in the year 1972 which extended the enforcement of this act to the whole north eastern states. Earlier, it was in force in the states of Manipur and Assam. It may be noted that prior to this amendment the power of declaring an area as 'DISTURBED AREA' rest with the Governor of the State or the Chief Commissioner of the union territory. However, this power, when this amendment was effected, was extended to the Centre.

Considering the analysis of the constitution, this emphasis on the extension of power seems quite unreasonable as 'Public Order' falls in the subject of State List of the constitution. Secondly, the total resting of power of declaration rather than a mere character of an approver with the centre snatch all the powers of the state govt. Why would not the state govt. stand up against its right when it is truly enshrined in the constitution?

Section 4 clause (a) states that if he is of the 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.

When an effort to delve into this holy book of the armed forces, obviously it can be deduced from the statement of clause 4 (a) that a uniformed personnel can spray its bullets in any of the following cases. {Please note the usage of the word "or" not "and" throughout the whole sentence]

1. If he contravenes the law of prohibition of assembly of five or more persons.
2. If he is in possession of any weapon or carrying anything which may be used as a weapon.
3. If he is carrying any arms, ammunitions or explosives etc...

In the meanwhile, the dictionary definition of weapons says that any instruments which can be used to kill or inflict injuries are included within the fold of weapons. Hence any implements like spate, sickle, axe etc are also weapons. The clause 'carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons' thus include the above implements.

Does it mean that a farmer is not supposed to use his implement? Then aren't a group of farmers, or any labour workers always loom in the shadow of fear of being fired upon by the armed forces; which means that they are always in a battle everyday..the battle of luck. It is a well known fact that a soldier never wanders alone in a civil area or while performing a duty, patrolling etc. Hence their danger from a person or group of four or five is irrational.

So do they really need this clause to secure their life in the name of containing public disorder? It is also quite explicit that if a group of meager four to five persons assemble against an order of Govt., the force on duty could as well pull the trigger. How could it be called a humanitarian law? This is truly a violation of Article 19 which prohibits the people from their fundamental rights to assemble.

A bullet for just possessing of arms or ammunitions is what this act could offers to the miscreant. Amazingly, throughout the clause, neither the word 'try to arrest' nor 'any reconciliatory word' features. Even though the double talk chiefs of the armed forces that the power will not be misused but as an act of possession of arms shall instigate fear in the minds of the personnel of armed forces, the susceptibility of people to frequent deaths caused by firing increase many folds because of the powers conferred to the uniformed personnel.

Then what is the difference between the militants and the armed forces in the eyes of the public because it is the common people who are bearing the grunt. However, retaliation against the use of such weapons by the arms possessor is the different case. Therefore the ultimate question is the legislation of such act which confers power to even a mere sepoy to take the life of a person for a simple assembly of four to five persons is justified or carrying a farming implement or carrying of daily required implements like knife after having bought from the market does come under contravention of law which may even cause his death or endangers his life.

Is this death penalty to such ordinary activities the biggest threat to the right to life of the people? Would this legislation still be called a law as law is made to protect the people not to insecure the life of the common people? Why don't the political acumen see this simple flaw or is it a deliberate act of turning blind?

India is always on the quest to show to the world that it upholds democracy the most. It is a signatory of the "Internatinal Covenant On Civil And Political Rights" and still it fails to kept the terms of the covenant violating Article 6 (Right to life), Article 7 (Prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), Article 9 (Right to liberty and security of person) of the ICCPR.

Is this the true meaning of democracy? Again, Section 4 (c) empowers them to make an 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 an arrest.

Moreover, section 4 (d) also confers them the power to enter and search without warrant any premises to make such an arrest as aforesaid 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. Thus the spectre of arrest almost haunts the mind of the many lakhs of people daily.

Whatever protection for the uniform personnel is implicit in this section but not a single clause for the protection of the life, dignity and property of the people has been referred in the act except the section 5 which provides a protection in name only that the arrested person has to be handed over to to nearest police station with the least possible delay.

The non-speculation of the period within which the convict is to be handed over is undue and precarious which could be misused endangering the safety of the person arrested. But the culmination of the inhumanity of the act is reflected by the section 6 which gives the iron protection to the armed forces stating that no persecution, suit or 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.

What else would an act be more primitive than this act? This act seems to be a fundamental right of the armed forces at the cost of ARTICLE 21(Protection of life and personal liberty) of the common people. The state of servitude of the people is attributable to all such evil acts which have crippled the social, political and economic condition of Manipur.

A greatest challenge to India's claim for the largest democracy, this act has been an apple of accord between the Human rights organization and the Govt. of India. But the act truly implicit centre's lack of consideration for the welfare of the citizens of the states where this act is in force.

It is the right time for the Govt. to understand that the immediate remedy of the nuisance and chaos of the states is not this act but the upgradation and execution of the plans which shall bring prosperity and welfare of the people as retrospection reveals only sufferings and discontentment brought about by this famous act.

Lastly, let's hope that the centre opens its close eyes and repeal this act for the betterment of the people and also keeping in view of the essence of the Preamble. I myself believe that the welfare of the people is the welfare of the nation.