In defence of human rights practiced by the Indian Army

As Uncle Ben says to Peter Parker in Spider man: “With great power comes great responsibility. That Indian armed forces should learn to get their fundamentals right is the normal rhetoric of the human right groups. And, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, which is in effect in parts of the North-east and Jammu & Kashmir, is constantly in their watch-list and one of the most misunderstood.

However, the provisions of the AFSPA emanates firmly from within the spirit of the constitution and the vision of our founding fathers. Section 3 of the AFSPA lays down that when the conditions in a state are disturbed and dangerous then the armed forces are to be used to prevent “activities involving terrorist acts directed towards overawing the government as by law established or striking terror in the people or any section of the people or alienating any section of the people or adversely affecting the harmony amongst different sections of the people.” The promulgation of AFSPA is carried out in the direst of circumstances. It is only when the ordinary citizen gets “overawed” that the government of the day decides to promulgate the act in the disturbed area. The verb     “striking terror” and “affecting the harmony” is to be understood in the correct perspective. What are the duties of a state towards the ordinary citizens?  Should the state permit the ordinary citizen to be terrorised and the harmony of society be compromised in the face of blatant misuse of human rights by terrorists and insurgents? Should the ordinary citizen get terrorized and overawed by elements that don’t have faith in the spirit of the Constitution? Isn’t it the duty of the state to maintain harmony amongst the denizens of the state?

The rhetoric that AFSPA  grants arbitrary powers to the armed forces to shoot at sight, arrest people on flimsy grounds, conduct searches without warrants and demolish structures in the name of “aiding civil power” is totally baseless and without reason. It is pertinent to analyse the rhetoric indulged by the rights organisations against the Indian Army.

First accusation pertains to the mishandling of situation arising out of assembly of a group of people and consequent violence. The AFSPA in no way prohibits peaceful assembly of people. It upholds the most sacred tenets of the Constitution. It is the misuse of such assembly to foment trouble and overawe the state that requires to be addressed. It is an open secret that such gatherings are used to manipulate public sentiments by anti-national and lumpen elements and create a situation in which innocent civilians are killed.

Secondly the case pertaining to the so- called human rights violations — young male members of a house disappearing in Jammu & Kashmir, Assamese civilians getting caught in army cross-fire, electric shocks being used as a common torture tool in Punjab, student protestors shot dead by the security forces in the Garo Hills in Meghalaya, civilians abused in the name of counter-insurgency in the border villages of Arunachal Pradesh and other cases need to be seen in the correct perspective. AFSPA Para 4(b) lays down that a competent officer “if he is of opinion that it is necessary to do so, may destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified position or shelter from which armed attacks are made or are likely to be made or are attempted to be made, or any structure used as training camp for armed volunteers or utilised as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offence”. The contingency quoted in the clause pertaining to the misuse of civil structure for waging war against the state is in no way a warrant for wanton destruction which the human right groups allege against the army. Disappearance of citizens is viewed very seriously and strictest possible disciplinary action against the defaulter is taken.

A word about the provision of arrest and search power given under the Act. Under the basic canons of the Constitution, these persons are handed over to the civil police in a stipulated time-frame. The spirit behind the search procedure is straightforward and involves presence of civil police including women police at all times.

The authority to search without a search warrant has a connotation that is to be understood in the correct perspective. The anti-national elements make use of civilian assets to wage war and create unstable conditions. The need to prevent them from succeeding in their designs requires that the infrastructure support these elements enjoy must be addressed to in a cogent manner.

It is trite, that there are no human rights without remedies for human wrongs, thus it is important to have a set up to redress these wrongs.  The National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commission are excellent redressal mechanisms and are proactive in addressing the human rights abuses in the country. It is pertinent to note that the NHRC had carried out an objective investigation of all human rights cases and provide relief to the complainants and issued directions to the state as to the steps to be taken to improve the human rights records. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 has a special clause pertaining to handling of cases regarding armed forces and looks after the interest of both the state and complainants. The US President Theodore Roosevelt had quoted “no man is above law and no man is below law” and this is the fundamental on which all the policies and assistance of Indian Army to civil administration is based on and is being pursued with vigour.

The stance of Indian Army on this issues is well explained by the founder of the Amnesty International Peter Benson “the candle burns not for us ,but for all those whom we failed to rescue from prison, who were shot on the way to prison, who were kidnapped, who “disappeared”. For the Indian Army too, it is the earnest desire and effort of to carry out all operations with minimum human rights violations and have a sterling human rights record.
 

(The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not reflect the views of the editorial committee or the centre for land warfare studies)