AFSPA A controversial anti-terror law (By Archit Kaul)
Introduction: –
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) gives security forces, battling militancy in the troubled regions of Kashmir and the northeast, sweeping powers to search arrest or shoot people. It gives legal immunity to the officials, so they can be neither sued nor prosecuted.
The act was passed on September 11, 1958, by the Parliament of India. Initially it was applicable only in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. It later extended to Jammu and Kashmir in July 1990.
There have been killings and human rights violation, in both Kashmir and the North-East, as a direct result of AFSPA which has raised many questions.
VIEWS AND OPINIONS: –
The views and opinions are mixed when it comes to the question of removal of AFSPA or to repeal it.
The Joint Chiefs have repeatedly reasserted that even partial revocation of AFSPA will greatly curtail the freedom of the army, to carry out operations. Present Army Chief Gen Bikram Singh said on 15th March that the time is “not right” for the removal of AFSPA from Jammu and Kashmir.
Also they feel, a soldier deserves all the legal protection he can get, for the result of any action/decision he takes on the spot, acting in the best interests of the situation.
On the other hand, Human rights groups feel that the AFSPA is a draconian law which the military arbitrarily uses to violate civilians’ rights. These groups have received political support in favour of their argument.
U.N. had also stated that India should scrap AFSPA in Kashmir. U.N.s Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, had urged New Delhi to repeal the law, saying it was “a symbol of excessive state power” that “clearly violates international law.”
Also another Key figure is Irom Sharmila, also known as the Iron Lady of Manipur, who has been on a hunger strike since November 2000 demanding the repeal of AFSPA.
PROBLEMS OF THE ACT
(1) It does not make a clear distinction between a peaceful gathering of five or more people and a berserk mob. So, even innocents who have no role in creating a situation that results in that region being called disturbed, also come under the purview of the law.
(2) The law also states that, no prosecution can be initiated against an officer without the previous sanction of the Central government. Purportedly, the logic behind the inclusion of this section is, to protect the officers from frivolous and misguided allegations. The government is usually not very fluid in giving this much-needed sanction, in order to express their faith in the armed forces and protect their interests.
(3) The decision of the government to declare a particular area disturbed cannot be challenged in a court of law. This has been the heart of the problem.
To a layman AFSPA may appear completely against democracy. However, the authorities and the army feel the legislation is essential to root out insurgents.
Also in the light of recent events in Kashmir any tampering with this act may prove to be a costly move.