Withering the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) : Value Judgement and Social Welfare
- Part 1 -

Dr L Krishnamangol Singh *

Protest demonstration demanding repeal of AFSPA 1958 at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on 22 December 2014 :: Pix - Seram Rojesh

The question of the imposition of AFSPA in Manipur needs a fresh re-examination. In fact, it calls for intellectual and public response afresh as it has been continuing in Manipur for a long time without any solution. And, this trends and practices have largely affected the interest of the general masses. In fact, the quickest response of the social scientists, intellectuals, expert (s) etc. is most welcome in the light of the new developments in this regard.

The trends so far have revealed that most people want that the AFSPA should be repealed/removed from Manipur. And this needs no elaboration here. There are other silent opinions which raise the question on : What would happen to the security situation after the repeal of the AFSPA from Manipur? In fact, this is a subtle question as it has large implications on political and social aspects. As is already known, the political dimension of the repeal of AFSPA is very large as the protection of law and order, and protection of life of the people is the prime concern of both the Central and State Governments. But, the political policy of the Governments can be reshaped and revitalised with renewed vigour according to the changing circumstances that are obtaining in the State.

In fact, the intellectual response explaining the merit of the repeal of AFSPA from Manipur can be a hot area and perhaps a valuable input to the Central and State Governments. And, a mere cry for the repeal of the AFSPA from Manipur will give a deaf ear to the Governments in view of the sporadic instances or events that happened in the State. Thus, the Governments need to be convinced as to how the security concerns of the State should be addressed while serving the interest of the people.

In fact, the people of Manipur cannot live in a state of confusion and conflict as a culture of the past. Thus, there should be some basic changes in the body polity in order to provide a new lease of life to the people. And, the critical changes in the body polity of political, economic and social systems basically lie in the changes in the mode of relation between the state or Governments and the people of the State. In fact, the present mode of governance continues to exist on the premise that the State will be dethroned and conquered. And it is considered that people have the adverse impacts of Centre-periphery relationships due to the imposition of AFSPA in Manipur.

And, many claim that this is yet another form of long subjugation or subordination of freedom even after British left India and Manipur. Thus, there will be endless debates and doubts as to the true meaning of freedom and democracy. It is in this context that there is the need for redefining the meaning of development and democracy. And, the new definition of development encompasses total involvement and sharing of people in the democracy apart from fulfilling the already known parameters of development.

In this respect, the total involvement and sharing of people in democracy demands for a "participatory democracy" in which people will largely substitute or act for the Governments at different levels for participation in governance and development of the State. And, the concept of "participatory democracy" is already available or used in the economic literature or economics.

Here, it can be pointed out that participatory democracy does not simply imply the fulfillment of the right to vote for electing representatives. And the narrow definition of participatory democracy (i.e. electing representatives only) may bypass a large number of people or the general mass of population from the benefits of economic growth and development. Thus, the new concept and definition of "inclusive economic growth" and "inclusive development" have been evolved and used as a variant of the development definition of the World Bank. In fact, it is found that "participatory democracy" and "inclusive growth and development" are almost synonymous and they are now converged within the framework of governance and development. Both the concepts imply participation of the people in development.

The only difference is that in participatory democracy, people seek to establish a system of self governance and self institutions without the help of the Government or Governments. And, the people also carried out a large number of economic and development activities without the role and help of the Governments. Thus the concepts like "participatory development" predominated or emerged in the development process of developing countries in the late seventies and early eighties (Kindleberger, UNESCO, Chopra, Kadekodi, etc.).

The refinement of the concept of "participatory democracy" as "participatory development" in the literature of development economics in recent years is to explore and utilise the vast potentials of development through collective actions or collective social choice in order to seek cooperation of the people in development (i.e. to achieve comprehensive economic development including other development aspects). And, the collective management of development or participatory development is to avoid the "tragedy of commons" (Hardin) or the zero sum game.

Again the collective management of the institution or the participatory development establishes a system of development without the help or role of the Government. And, in this model of participatory development, there will be no scope for the formation of private properties. This implies that in this system, the individuals or the people can share the benefits, but they cannot own the properties or the assets.

Thus the rights of the individuals to own the assets like land, buildings, resources, etc is abolished in this model of participatory development. Thus, the experiences have shown that the model of participatory development establishes a new system of Marxian development in which there will be no private properties. Therefore, the concept has not been popular in Indian planning even in recent years in spite of the large literature in the fields.

In fact, the participatory development system can effectively function with the help and role of the Governments. Thus, the concept of participatory institutions were used by the Indian planners or policy makers in order to encourage the participatory institutions like the Panchayats, Cooperative institutions, local self governments, the village organisations, etc.

In fact, the emphasis has been shifted from participatory institutions or development to participative institutions as a strategic component for nation building and state building. And, the new model of "participative development" is a mechanism in which people and the Governments will be combined with the State or the Government playing a leading or supportive role for providing opportunities for people's participation in development. Again, in this system of participative development, people or the individuals can enjoy the property rights (i.e. the private property rights and collective rights).

And, in such a situation, people's participation in development cannot go beyond a limit as participatory or participative institutions are allowed to function within the regulatory framework of the governments. The Government is aware that if all institutions are participatory within the framework of "participatory democracy" there will be no role of the Government.

In fact, if there is wholesale (total) participatory system of democracy or no system of democracy in which people will perform all activities including economic, social, cultural, and others, there will again be no role of the Government. Indeed, this is quite dangerous in any democratic system as the State will wither away in the whole polity of the nation.

It is in this context that the Central Government of the country is committed to the political and economic policy of "minimum government and maximum governance" that seeks to expand the private sectors and strengthen the institutions of governance for development within the framework of democracy. And, as the Government seeks to expand the governance for the welfare of the people, there is no room for excessive individualism for vested interests.

In fact, this process of development is a long journey for developing countries like India including Manipur. And the experiment for the new system of development and governance is a welcome step as in the words of Prof. Paul Samuelson (Nobel Laureate) "future is longer than the present".

It is in this context of development and governance that the question of repeal or removal of AFSPA from Manipur calls for fresh re-examination and reconsideration. The first consideration relates to the "value judgement" for the repeal of the Act. In fact, the question of value judgement is essential for any rational decision at appropriate levels. Therefore, it would be essential to re-examine and appreciate the conceptual issues and significance of value judgement.

In economics, the central idea of the "value judgement" is that a particular decision or action (i.e. the choice) may affect both the individuals A and B and that the concept of value judgement may be applied to consider the relative merits and demerits of the changes. Thus, the concept of "value judgement" is a policy tool or policy criteria that is used by the policy makers or governments for any decision on development issues. In philosophy, "judgement" implies the simplest kind of thinking. And thinking requires intellectual work that needs to reach a conclusion. Thus, the term judgement is the starting point or the first act of thinking. And, it is an act of consciousness. In fact, judgement required growth in knowledge and thinking. In the absence of advancements in knowledge, the judgements may be wrongly applied. In fact, the judgement must have qualities based on facts and realities. Thus, there should be transformation from the judgements or vague judgements into a distinct, perfect and harmonious judgement. In fact, the judgement should not be partial. And the judgement should build up a just system or a just society.

And, ancient philosophers had also used the term "just price" as the best judgement on economic issues. Thus, the economist used the term "judgement" which combines both facts and reasons. And, in judiciary, or legal matters the term judgement seeks to bring out justice and realities. Thus, the term "judgement" is an act of consciousness, which combines both the act of thinking itself and the result of the thinking. And, the judgement should not be in the elementary process of thinking.

In fact, the judgement cannot be considered as a simple thought or simple process of thought. Thus, the progress in knowledge is essential for transformation of the vague judgement. Today, there is the need for more knowledge and, perhaps, real knowledge or perfect knowledge to pass judgement. Thus, one judgement needs new judgement, depending upon the growth in knowledge and analysis or interpretation of facts based on data, information, and realities of the evidences or events.

To be continued...