"Man is not for law but law is made for men"
- Part 2 -

By Seram Rojesh *

As the author says, in the case of UK, "The country also has a "control order" that empowers police to approach a closed court and ask restrictions to be placed on some one who poses a terror threat. The UK's new counter terrorism bill extends the pre charge detention of terror suspects from 28 to 42 days".

It means UK counter terrorism bill clarified limited days for detention of terror suspects unto 42 days. But it case of Indian law AFSPA, article 5 does not give any limited time of detention. Article 5 of AFSPA says "Any person arrested and taken into custody under 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".

It is a fact that Indian AFSPA is more dangerous than UK's counter terrorism bill or American "Patriots Act". Is there any country in the world as similar law of AFSPA operating in the domestic space of a country itself?

If the answer is no than one could say that, India is the most hostile country subject to their people in the world having such type of law like AFSPA in the last 50 years. Is there any similar law of AFSPA which is very specific and regional in application even in the communist country like China?

Another statement says "NE region has been conflict ridden for past six decades now. In 1958 AFSPA was enforced in this region to provide safety to armed forces personnel (Officer, JCO, NCO) against the impunity and freedom enjoyed by insurgents for violence". Here, it indicates that the writer is not properly studied the parliamentary debate on AFSPA in 1958 and also Supreme Court Judgment of justification of AFSPA in 1997.

In the Supreme Court judgment, not even a single word of insurgents or insurgency was mentioned. It clearly says APSPA is not due to "armed Rebellion". Unlike US's "patriots act" or UK's new counter terrorism bills, it doesn't mention that the act is to counter "terrorism or extremism or what so-ever. AFSPA does not clarify anything.

Supreme Court of India is also playing with "word" while justifying the "terror act". Conflict in Manipur or in Eastern part of areas of India in the last six decades is not originated from the region itself. It is the reflection of the conflicting ideas of the "idea of India" and the conflicting "idea of Democracy" in India. There is a constant conflict is in the mind of the Indian People where there is a desire to become a democratic state with the practice of "idea of militarism".

50 years of AFSPA in application, Indian state is not accepting the fact that there is a systematic and continuous violation of human rights and atrocities committed by the state in Manipur Kashmir, and many states in India. State machinery has been saying that those armed forces that are responsible of atrocities have been booked.

It also says in the article, Terror, terror, terror" that "It is always voiced that armed forces commit excesses but a silver lining is that human rights commissions (HRCs) exercise check the excesses. There are numbers of cases that come to light where armed forces personnel have been booked by the court (army/civil) for the excesses committed and victim granted compensation (thanks to HRCs). But in a democracy and free society this kind of laws that restrict individual freedom but ensure societal well being are unwelcome."

My questions are, how many cases have been investigated and how many armed forces personals have been booked in case of Kashmir and Manipur or Nagaland or Assam etc. The another fact is, the National Human rights commission of India (NHRC) has no any authority for investigation of the cases of atrocities against the armed forces of their crimes.

In case of Manipur, After AFSPA imposition, Ahanjaobi Rape case has been so far the only case that the Army courts of Inquiry punished the rapist army. One lakhs of rupees was told to be given to Ahanjaobi and it was also given recently after a long court hearings.

From 1974, Rose rape case to Manorama, from Heirangoithong incident of Open firing by the CRPF to the Massacre of Mallom by the Indian Armed forces and now everyday encounters happening in Manipur, and many disappearances under the custody of Indian Armed Forces, no person has been booked except in the case of Ahanjaobi. One could always argue that, unfortunately, without any facts the author is speaking the same language of the state machinery that always used to justify state atrocities.

In more problematic ways, without any understanding of the differences in some states of North east, it says, "Mizoram has been freed of the yoke of AFSPA. States of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh of this region did not need such an act. This act was repealed with in Imphal municipal limits in response to large scale protests after Th. Manorama case in 2004. 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".

In this idea, the problem here occurs where the writer and many unconscious people of the state do not differentiate the differences of the states in India. Mizoram has its own narratives and history that How Mizoram was bombed by the Indian armed Forces in the operation before the Mizo Accord was signed.

Still "Mizo accord" becomes a matter of embarrassment for many Mizos. If the MIzo wants to be part of the Indian State, then, it is the rights of the Mizos to decide. You can't expect the same approach in the case of Manipur.

Manipur have a different tradition of existence from principality to kingdom, than princely state in British India to a modern democratic state in Pre-annexation into Indian Dominion. Manipur was the first country who practiced "adult franchise" and one of the premier modern democratic states in the south East Asia.

It has its own script and many areas where we can't compare. Sikkim was brought to India in 70s. And still some areas of Arunachal Predesh are still under "Disturbed Area Act". Chief Minister Okram Ibobi has been saying that "nobody wants AFSPA but situation demands AFSPA.

The author says about the views on the emerging stereotypical questions emerging in the mind of people in Manipur about the accountability and the sincerity of the some of the leaders of the organizations of the non-state forces who are perceived staying abroad. I am also with the opinion that the people of Manipur have the rights to know how the money which has been collected for the national liberation movement from the people, questioning whether it has been using for the movement or for the personal purposes.

But, it is not very clear what the writer is targeting by saying "pseudo organizations" in the statement by saying, "Readers need to think about whose welfare it is (own leaders who are staying abroad) pseudo organizations (who only know to put fuel into the fire) or cadres (used as cannon fodders). The status of pseudo organizations is like an unscrupulous monkey who deprived the two cats of bread by his clever moves and ate up the same himself."

In case of the Indian state, e.g. the Border Security Forces and Indian soldier are staying in the conflict area and politician and bureaucrats are staying in the air conditioned room in Delhi and capital cities. Indian foreign services are staying abroad. In this context, could we argue that Indian soldiers are staying in war area and Indian foreign serves are staying abroad happily? This is decided by the profession which they have chosen for the service of the nation. In the case of the non state also one can apply the same approach.

As a reader, I feel what does this "pseudo organizations (who only know to put fuel into the fire)" meant the Non state organizations who are contesting the Indian State and the civil societies of Manipur including Meira Paibies, who are always in a position to resist generally against the Indian State authority for their atrocities.

In this context, we could relate a statement once made by the Chief Minister of Manipur, Okram Ibobi, "the so called civil society of Manipur are always standing against the Police commandos or Armies, if State forces killed People but if the same Act is being done by the Militants , these organization are always silent".

Generally it seems logical but in principle it has a lot of problem in this statement if we analyze from the perspective of the "ethics of state". Here, my argument is, it is because of the movements, protests and people's resistances lead by the civil society organizations (Meira Paibies, student's organizations etc) we are being existing as a people and able to protect our dignity as Human being not because of law made by the Indian State.

The writer of the 'TTT' seems confused about the solution of the conflicts in Manipur as he says, "Hierarchy of the outfits is not interested in finding solutions because it will strip them of unwarranted privileges". It seems that the author and many people who think as it is, have no clear understanding about the Armed Conflict in Manipur.

Why there is a conflict in Manipur. What is the nature of the conflict? What is the solution of the conflict between the Indian State Armed Forces who represents Indian State and the non State armed Forces of Manipur who represents the aspiration of Manipur to become an Independent state?

The key conflicting idea arises where Indian state wants to maintain the State as it is by any means including using forces and the non state forcers of Manipur wanted "sovereignty and ruled by the people of Manipur themselves" . i.e. Indian State does not want to compromise the sovereignty over Manipur and Manipur non state forces does not want to accept the sovereignty of India over them (Manipur). This is the fundamental key conflict between the Indian State and the Non state forces of Manipur.

Even, a non State organization likes KCP stands for "Sovereignty over land and people of Manipur". The major organization like UNLF already declared their Four point Agenda of resolving "India- Manipur conflict" only by addressing "complete sovereignty of Manipur".

Chairman of the RPF/ PLA already expresses in his 30th rising day that "The RPF will never settle for anything less than total sovereignty pledged Chaoren and added that a lone battle will not bear fruit. It is the firm belief of the RPF that the struggle will prove fruitful only with the unstinted support of the people". (24 September, the Sangai express) without addressing these very Political question of "sovereignty of Manipur" it will not be possible to come into a Permanent solution in Manipur.

To be continued ...