There has been a lot of criticism about the AFSPA(Armed Forces Special Powers Act). What is so objectionable about the act? Let's first see as to what the act is all about.
The AFSPA provides unlimited powers to the security forces to shoot at sight, arrest anybody without a warrant or carry out searches without hindrances. It also insulates the security forces from legal processes for any action undertaken under the act.
Who opposes this act tooth and nail and for what reasons? And why do the security forces vehemently oppose its withdrawal? The answers would give a fair idea in our balanced thinking about the enforcement of the act.
(a) Against.
(i) The law was formulated by the then British government to tackle the 'Quit India Movement' and
was incorporated into the Indian scheme of things, without changes, after independence.
(ii) The state governments have no powers to intervene or put pressure on the implementation
because the final word rests with the security forces.
(iii) There have been instances of excesses on the part of the security forces while performing their
duties.
(b) For.
(i) The security forces can take quick action against the terrorists and their silent backers. This
power greatly enhances their influence upon the local civilian population who are willing to
provide them with vital information that is a necessity while carrying out combing operations.
(ii) Unnecessary meddling by corrupt politicians and the state government - at times, sympathetic
to the terrorists' cause - has been strictly ruled out.
My take.
Such stringent laws are a must to tackle terrorism and other acts that are a threat to the nation's sovereignty and integrity. In addition, the following must be ensured:-
(a) The 'security forces-local population-state government' interface must meet regularly to review
actions taken, the lessons learnt and incorporate fresh inputs to fine tune the implementation.
(b) The armed forces has a fool proof system to tackle 'deviations' but prefer to carry out corrective
measures without giving publicity. This needs a rethink, so that the public comes to know that
the security forces deal with their defaulters equally, if not more strongly, when compared with the
terrorists/law breakers because it's a question of the institution's honour!
(c) Periodic review of the act to add/delete clauses taking into consideration the ground realities.
Tailpiece.
In this connection, I consider the Imphal sessions court order to release human rights activist, Irom Chanu Sharmila as timely and a step in the right direction.
The AFSPA provides unlimited powers to the security forces to shoot at sight, arrest anybody without a warrant or carry out searches without hindrances. It also insulates the security forces from legal processes for any action undertaken under the act.
Who opposes this act tooth and nail and for what reasons? And why do the security forces vehemently oppose its withdrawal? The answers would give a fair idea in our balanced thinking about the enforcement of the act.
(a) Against.
(i) The law was formulated by the then British government to tackle the 'Quit India Movement' and
was incorporated into the Indian scheme of things, without changes, after independence.
(ii) The state governments have no powers to intervene or put pressure on the implementation
because the final word rests with the security forces.
(iii) There have been instances of excesses on the part of the security forces while performing their
duties.
(b) For.
(i) The security forces can take quick action against the terrorists and their silent backers. This
power greatly enhances their influence upon the local civilian population who are willing to
provide them with vital information that is a necessity while carrying out combing operations.
(ii) Unnecessary meddling by corrupt politicians and the state government - at times, sympathetic
to the terrorists' cause - has been strictly ruled out.
My take.
Such stringent laws are a must to tackle terrorism and other acts that are a threat to the nation's sovereignty and integrity. In addition, the following must be ensured:-
(a) The 'security forces-local population-state government' interface must meet regularly to review
actions taken, the lessons learnt and incorporate fresh inputs to fine tune the implementation.
(b) The armed forces has a fool proof system to tackle 'deviations' but prefer to carry out corrective
measures without giving publicity. This needs a rethink, so that the public comes to know that
the security forces deal with their defaulters equally, if not more strongly, when compared with the
terrorists/law breakers because it's a question of the institution's honour!
(c) Periodic review of the act to add/delete clauses taking into consideration the ground realities.
Tailpiece.
In this connection, I consider the Imphal sessions court order to release human rights activist, Irom Chanu Sharmila as timely and a step in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment