Defending the indefensible

That8217;s what we are forced to do, given laws like the AFSPA

This is with reference to Harwant Singh8217;s 8216;In defence of Special Powers8217; IE, December 16. The extent to which soldiers should be empowered in insurgency situations has been a subject of much debate.

The complex conflict in the Northeast has been going on for the past six decades. It is one of our four major internal security challenges 8212; others being Kashmir, Naxalism and terrorism in the hinterland. The human rights record of the Armed Forces in fighting insurgencies has been exemplary. There have been aberrations, of course, but they have been set right by the timely intervention of the authorities. However, the idea of continuing to empower soldiers with sweeping powers, as inherent in the Armed Forces Special Powers Act AFSPA, when conditions on the ground have transformed greatly since 1958, when this law was enacted, needs a review.

The insurgency in the Northeast is no longer rural guerrilla warfare restricted to the raids and ambushes of an earlier era. It is a politico-military campaign to maintain the status quo, so that the prevalent anarchy will sustain the welter of nexuses, of which the militant is the focal point. Thus the contractor-criminal dyad will pay obeisance to the leaders of terrorist groups in their respective areas of influence. While negotiations are being undertaken with the state, they are seldom successful. Instead, virtually impossible conditions are placed, such as unification of Naga areas. Given the chameleon-like nature of the terrorists in the area, giving soldiers with powers to kill is likely to lead to embarrassing situations such as the killing of Manorama Devi, forcing the top brass to rescue their subordinates.

The increasing presence of terrorists in urban areas has also led to militants being regarded as the underdogs. As would be expected, the media, human rights organisations and internal support groups such as the Naga Mothers Association are extremely vigilant about rights violations by the security forces. The militants being past masters at perception management have been manipulating incidents to excite attention of such groups placing innocent soldiers in the front line as gullible victims in their propaganda campaign. While defending their subordinates may be acutely embarrassing for senior commanders, not doing so is often seen as a sign of disloyalty, which will lead to fears of loss of morale. The overall result is what the militants had been hoping for: a wide schism in the policy-making and implementation hierarchy.

There is no doubt that there is a need to enact more humane laws than the AFSPA and shed the anachronous legacy of the 1950s. As John Maynard Keynes, the noted economist said, 8220;When the facts change, I change my mind.8221;