AFSPA: The Armed Forces Special Powers Act

Should AFSPA be repealed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 15.7%
  • No

    Votes: 47 52.8%
  • Dilute AFSPA provisions

    Votes: 5 5.6%
  • More flexible system according to situation

    Votes: 23 25.8%

  • Total voters
    89

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
A Modest Proposal on AFSPA

By Siddharth Varadarajan

Change the blanket ban on trials without official sanction to one where the government has the power to bar prosecution in individual cases provided it satisfies the courts that its reasons for doing so are valid.

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act has come in for widespread criticism in Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur and other parts of the northeast because of the human rights abuses that have come to be associated with its operation. So strong is the sentiment against AFSPA in Kashmir that in recent months Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah have all spoken of the need to re-examine the law. The Army, on the other hand, says this is unnecessary.

The Army Chief, General V.K. Singh, has gone so far as to say that the demand for the dilution of AFSPA is being made for "narrow political gains." On his part, Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal, GOC-in-C, Northern Command, has compared the Act to scripture. "I would like to say that the provisions of AFSPA are very pious to me and I think to the entire Indian Army. We have religious books, there are certain guidelines which are given there, but all the members of the religion do not follow it, they break it also "¦ does it imply that you remove the religious book "¦?"



Manipur Students of various organisations hold placards during a protest demonstration, demanding withdrawal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from northeast and Kashmir, at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on August 21, 2010. File Photo: S. Subramanium

On paper, AFSPA is a deceptively simple law. First passed in 1958, it comes into play when the government declares a particular part of the northeast (or Jammu and Kashmir under a parallel 1990 law) a "disturbed area." Within that area, an officer of the armed forces has the power to "fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of fire-arms, ammunition or explosive substances."

Even though activists have made this the focus of their criticism, giving soldiers the "right to kill" is not, in my opinion, AFSPA's principal flaw. After all, if a 'law and order' situation has arisen which compels the government to deploy the Army, soldiers have to be allowed to use deadly force. Even a private citizen has the right to kill someone in self-defence, though the final word on the legality of her or his action belongs to the courts. Similarly, a civilised society expects that the use of deadly force by the Army must at all times be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Here, the Act suffers from two infirmities: the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution contained in Section 6 often comes in the way when questions arise about the lawfulness of particular actions. Second, AFSPA does not distinguish between a peaceful gathering of five or more persons (even if held in contravention of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code) and a violent mob. Firing upon the latter may sometimes be justified by necessity; shooting into a peaceful assembly would surely fail any test of reasonableness.

Leaving this issue aside, however, it is important to recognise that AFSPA does not give an officer the unqualified right to fire upon and cause the death of any person in a Disturbed Area. At a minimum, that person should have been carrying weapons or explosives. The shooting of an unarmed individual, and the killing of a person in custody, are not acts that are permissible under AFSPA. Force is allowed in order to arrest a suspect but the fact that the Act authorises the use of "necessary" rather than "deadly" force in such a circumstance means the tests of necessity and proportionality must be met.

Over the years that AFSPA has been in operation, the Army has opened fire countless times and killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Whenever those killed have been armed insurgents or terrorists, there has been little or no public clamour against the Act. It is only when the armed forces violate the provisions of the law and indulge in the unlawful killing of persons — especially unarmed civilians — that voices get raised against AFSPA. The protests in Manipur in 2004 reached a crescendo because of the death in custody of Th. Manorama and scores of others like her. In Kashmir, sentiments against the Armed Forces Act got inflamed because of fake encounter incidents like Pathribal and Macchhil.

If today people are questioning General Jaswal's "religious book," it is not so much because of its provisions as because of the failure of its custodians to act when the law is flouted. The Lord's Word threatens sinners with fire and brimstone, eternal damnation or the endless cycle of births and deaths. But AFSPA holds out no such horrors for the soldiers who violate its provisions. Section 6 says "no prosecution "¦ shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act." This requirement confers de facto impunity on all transgressors. Thus the CBI may have indicted army officers for the murder of innocent civilians at Pathribal in 2000 but their trial cannot take place because the Central government refuses to give sanction. What is worse, the Minister concerned does not even have to give any reasons.

The ostensible logic behind this Section, a variant of which can be found in Section 197 of the CrPC and in many Indian laws, is to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious law suits. But though it has not ruled on the ambit of AFSPA's Section 6, the Supreme Court has often declared that the object of Section 197-type protection is not to set an official above the common law. "If he commits an offence not connected with his official duty he has no privilege."

In the Pathribal case, the CBI took the view that abducting and killing unarmed civilians in cold blood could not be considered part of "official duty." Not only did the MoD reject this logic, it moved the Supreme Court for quashing of the case on the ground that it has not granted sanction to prosecute. At no time has it been asked to furnish reasons for denying sanction.

A government which has faith in the actions of its officers and the robustness of its judicial system ought never to shy away from allowing the courts to step in when doubts arise. And yet, in case after case, legal proceedings get stymied by the denial of official sanction.

In a democracy, this requirement of previous sanction should have no place. But given the balance of political and institutional forces in India today, it is utopian to believe it can simply be done away with. What I am proposing, therefore, is a modest remedy. Let us not tamper with the government's ability to protect officers from criminal proceedings. But instead of the default setting being 'no prosecution without official sanction,' let the blocking of a prosecution require official action.

Section 6 could thus be amended to read: "No prosecution "¦ shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act where the Central government provides reasons in writing and the competent court upholds the legal validity of these reasons."

Such a provision would prevent good officers from being prosecuted for killings which result from acts of good faith while allowing the bad apples to be prosecuted for their crimes. The government would still have the right to intervene on behalf of a soldier who has committed an illegal act. But this would require a Minister to take personal responsibility for a decision that would, after all, be tantamount to denying justice to the victim's family. In the Pathribal case, for example, Defence Minister A.K. Antony would be compelled to inform the trial court of his reasons for opposing the prosecution of soldiers indicted by the CBI for murder. And the court would get to rule on whether Mr. Antony's reasons were valid or not.

There is no reason why this inversion of the "previous sanction" provision cannot be replicated across the board in all Indian laws to cover situations where human rights abuses are alleged. Such a provision would not disturb the basic provisions of AFSPA. But it would bring that "religious book" in closer conformity with an even holier tome, the Constitution of India.

P.S.: An old article, but worth some debate!
Source
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
It is all very glib to talk of democracy.

If indeed democracy is taken to be a holy cow, then maybe democracy can ensure that there are no terrorists or there are their overt and covert sympathisers hell bent in subverting the very democracy they talk about.

If there is no total lawlessness as in the areas declared 'Disturbed', then where would the necessity be for AFSPA?

The Army is called out as the 'last resort'. This means that every other means at the disposal of the Govt has failed, namely the Administration and the Police. If the police, who are trained to restore law and order have also failed, what does it mean? Peaceful people could not be controlled by the Police?

It is all very easy to claim that the Security Forces fire on peaceful demonstrators. If they were peaceful, then where would be the reason to fire? I am sure that all in the Security Forces are not psychopaths or are they?

When there are reasons to believe that the Security Forces have overstepped, then there is always a Judicial Inquiry. Now, if the Judiciary is also not trusted, then why trust the democracy?

It must also be realised that the Army is also a part of the Nation and it cares for the citizens as much as the citizens care for themselves.

If the AFSPA is withdrawn, it will be the best thing. The Army shall not act. Why should they expose themselves to harassment, when maintaining law and order is not their task but that of the Police and the paramilitary.

Already, the Army has declined coming to the assistance of the WB Govt in the case of Darjeeling arson and agitation.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
Strong and very good points Ray Sir. However, there do exist fringe elements within the Armed Forces who do take up extreme measures against civilians, even when it is not needed. So, when the author requests amendment stating "No prosecution "¦ shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act where the Central government provides reasons in writing and the competent court upholds the legal validity of these reasons." - I do agree with him. Removal of AFSPA is not the solution, but amending it a little can help. Nobody should think they are above the law.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Strong and very good points Ray Sir. However, there do exist fringe elements within the Armed Forces who do take up extreme measures against civilians, even when it is not needed. So, when the author requests amendment stating "No prosecution "¦ shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act where the Central government provides reasons in writing and the competent court upholds the legal validity of these reasons." - I do agree with him. Removal of AFSPA is not the solution, but amending it a little can help. Nobody should think they are above the law.
The Central Govt cannot be answering to every single frivolous complaint in writing.

While there can be excesses, yet the number of frivolous complaints are huge.

Enter a house during CASO (Cordon and Search Operations) or gather the village at one spot while CASO is on and there are hundred of complaints of harassment and how they were badly treated, beaten or otherwise!
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
The Central Govt cannot be answering to every single frivolous complaint in writing.

While there can be excesses, yet the number of frivolous complaints are huge.

Enter a house during CASO (Cordon and Search Operations) or gather the village at one spot while CASO is on and there are hundred of complaints of harassment and how they were badly treated, beaten or otherwise!
Again I agree Sir. However, Armed Forces needs to be a little more sensitive to the local populace, I am coming to that.

There is a certain place where even the DC pays a percentage of his salary to terrorist groups every year, known as safety tax. Everyone pays, right from Government Officials to Businessmen to Politicians. The Army knows that. Since the terrain is difficult, the Army has had very little success in capturing those terrorists or containing them. Intel being the other reason. In almost all cases, terrorists would send a local sympathizer to collect the money(tax), and it makes it even more difficult for the Army to trace things. So the Army would pick up innocent Civilians and question them about the guy who came and collected the money, also torture them, regardless of age. That guy who would come to collect the tax would come from a village 100 miles away, so he is an unknown face. How would the local people know him and his whereabouts? Army never picked up the DC or the SP to question, nor did the Army pick up the local MLA who was a known sympathizer of the terrorists, for they also have been paying taxes. These things create fear among the local population.

On one side, there are the terrorists people have to pay to, to ensure they & their family are safe. And on the other side, there is the Army who would pick them up and torture them. So, where do the local population go? What do they do? The Army says that these tax money collected is used to buy arms to be used against them, very fine. But then, if the Army wants the local population not to give safety money, an environment of peace and trust should be created first. This is where the GoI go wrong and the Army too sometimes.

We talked in one thread about NE women being thought as Easy. Please have a look at this:

This incident happened in my hometown, and I personally vouch for this to be true. So, there are fringe elements who sometimes act out of the line - within the Army, as there are frivolous complaint in writing against the Army. I support the Armed Forces, I support the AFSPA - but the humane angle cannot be laved away. It needs to be looked onto.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,213
Country flag
I don't think that removing it is a solution. It has to be slightly changed because some sick @$$e$ in forces abuse their power against local people for no reason and they get easily brainwashed by militants using these mishaps to manipulate. A slight change in the doctrine and the powers would do fine. As for J&K, These students are stupid; they don't know half of what's going on there.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
'If you want Army to act, it needs that Act'


The Centre plans to withdraw nearly 10,000 paramilitary personnel from Jammu and Kashmir this year as it feels that the state can do with less central forces.

The government has also stated that amendments to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) are still on the table and hopes the committee of the Unified Headquarters in the state declares some areas in the state as "not disturbed" to make the controversial law redundant in those parts.

"There is scope of reduction of troops is the Home Ministry's view. There are more than adequate forces in Kashmir and it can do with less central forces," Union Home Secretary G K Pillai said.


When asked how many personnel are being pulled out from the state, he said in 2009, the Centre pulled out 10 battalions (10,000 men) from the state. Last year, it did not take out any because of the agitation from June to September.

"I think this year, we can easily take out 10 battalions if not more. Irrespective of the situation, I can take out 10 battalions and it would not have any impact.

"We have about 70 battalions in Kashmir and we have 62 battalions in seven Left-wing affected states which are big states.... I think if I can take out, I will try to pull out as many as I can," he said.


On the amendments on AFSPA, whose withdrawal has been demanded by the state, he said this is an issue, which has to be decided politically.

"But OK, even if it is not done I think you can move forward and say some parts of Kashmir need not be declared disturbed," he said.

Pillai said that if there was no change being made in the AFSPA then the area can be denotified (as disturbed) and the law will not be applicable there.


"You keep the act as it is which is what the Army says don't meddle with the Act but if you want me (Army) to act, I need that Act... You see law and order situation in Srinagar has improved. Anyway, Army is not in Srinagar. They are not operating in Budgam.

"You say remove it from there.... That area is no longer disturbed. This is a notification of the state government not a state notification by Central Government," the Home Secretary said.

He said the proposals for amendments in the AFSPA were before the Cabinet Committee on Security.


The Home Secretary allayed fears that violence may return in the Kashmir Valley, saying several major steps have been taken post-September last year.

"All-party meeting, interlocutors, two reports of the Task Force of Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh reports have come. We got this employment committee report of Dr Ranjarajan that is expected this month. I think a lot of things are slowly changing. It is not fast enough as we would like," he said.

Pillai said there was a need to reach out to people of Kashmir and not just reaching out to mainstream political parties.


"I have seen many of these conferences... same old fifteen fellows in the last ten years in backstage, stage two.. same people, same thing coming out. You have to start talking to other people and get fresh ideas. So I think we have to reach out to the people of Kashmir," Pillai said.

He said the Centre is planning to hold seminars in remote areas of the state with a team of 100 officers of the Centre along with state government officers listening to the problems of local Kashmiris.

When asked whether this move will not impinge on the authority of the state government, he said the state government will be on board and the location will be selected by them.

"We don't have any Panchayati Raj in Jammu and Kashmir. You don't have any panchayats in Jammu and Kashmir for last couple of years.. so again people don't have any...local small problems..health problem, water problem, school problems, they don't have anybody to go except state government. These types of district seminars come to say they have a lot of opportunities," he said.

The Home Secretary said that in many remote areas, people do not know whom to contact.

"You will be surprised that most of people still come to me from distant districts in North Eastern areas because I held such seminars there," he said.

Source
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,213
Country flag
^^ Nice read mate. The situation for AFSPA is only because of the creation of the people of these states. Why other states never needed this? Rajasthan borders Pakistan still no problem, Gujarat also has a "disputed" creek with Pakistan (according to them entire India is disputed) and then there is no terrorism there. In fact it is the most developed state in the country.

Then how come only Kashmir and significant parts of NE have this problem? Modi jumps at every seminar and invites businesses to Gujarat and hence creating a wonderful environment for growth. Is this enthusiasm seen in any parties in the AFSPA regions' leaders? No. All are corrupt scumbags hand in hand with terrorists. Tarun Gogoi invites ULFA to join politics, Mamta supports barbaric Maoists openly, Pawan Kumar Chamling doesn't do anything at all just sits like a statue etc.

So now we can easily say that bordering state is no excuse for terrorism or development. If Gujarat can do it, so can Nagaland, Assam, Arunachal, Sikkim, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Tripura. For this, the people's attitude to remain "tribal", "ethnic", "group", "faction" has to die down literally and move to state and national level mentality with an open acceptance of India as a nation. When scums like Geelani and Mirwaiz are provided security, how do you expect terrorism not to flourish? Instead of years of AFSPA, A combing operation for 1 full year to GUN DOWN at least half of separatists secretly (censorship is not at all difficult for Army and intelligence). Only fear and counter-terror's brute force can instill a sense of fear in these louts and traitors.

AFSPA instead of an act must become the very operation like Chinese PLA only then we can get rid of this scum once and for all.

Those who are going to bleed their hearts for these "oh our brothers, oh they are humans and have human rights" should stop this apologetic thinking because development will take place ONLY if there is security and safety in any state. For this, people of state have to change first. Don't blame terrorism as a result of "non-development". Gujarat is safe for industrialists and hoteliers that's why development takes place there. If AFSPA states want this , they need to be brutal in one go.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
I do think a watered down, toned-down version of the AFSPA is in order. Particularly, provisions that allow immunity from legal prosecution, anywhere and everywhere, even when there is significant evidence to the contrary have to go; as do provisions enabling the right to fire carte blanche upon an assembly of five or more people, in certain sensitive areas, without first establishing prior threat. But demanding the removal of the AFSPA altogether is where detractors lose the plot. Subjecting national security to myopic, still largely aberrant <because, these are not wide-spread>, considerations will get us nowhere. The Army has never been above the law, and never will be.



Visiting President's attention drawn towards AFSPA repeal


IMPHAL, March 11: The President of India, Pratibha Devising Patil after her completing her maiden two-day visit to the state capital has left Imphal on a special chartered flight of the Indian Airforce this morning at about 11.15 am for New Delhi.

The first lady President of India had arrived at the Imphal Airport yesterday noon and was escorted under tight security arrangements to the Raj Bhavan, Imphal.

The President of India during her stay in the state this morning interacted with the chairperson of the state Social Welfare Board, as well as with the chairperson of the Manipur Women's Development Corporation and representatives of the Women's Self Help Groups and discussed various issues related to the problems faced by the women of the state.

In the meantime, the chairperson Manipur State Social Welfare Board while calling on the President of India at Raj Bhavan Imphal had raised the issue of Irom Chanu Sharmila who has been on a fast unto death for about a decade, for the removal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from the state.

Further, the chairperson also submitted official representations to the President of India during meeting at the Raj Bhavan for considering a political solution to the insurgency and waning conflict in Manipur, steps for the economic empowerment of widows and destitute women, problems of un-employment and Women's Reservations for political empowerment of women in the state, etc.


http://kanglaonline.com/2011/03/visiting-presidentas-attention-drawn-towards-afspa-repeal/
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Debate -Armed Forces Special Powers Act

Draconian Law
Oct 24, 2011, 12.00AM IST


Jammu & Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah has rightly called for the revocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from certain areas of his state. The emergency law, which was imposed in the light of militancy in Kashmir and continues to be in place in all the seven northeastern states, faces a groundswell of resentment. Irom Sharmila's decade-long hunger strike exemplifies the criticism that the AFSPA is the single biggest reason for excesses by army personnel in these areas. Human rights groups and legal luminaries have also pointed to the draconian premise of the law, which confers blanket immunity for actions undertaken by the armed forces. While it can be argued that the volatile situation in Kashmir in the 1990s and separatist movements in the northeast earlier warranted such a tough law, relative peace in recent times merits a gradual phase out of the AFSPA.

It is true that the defence ministry and the army have urged a cautious approach and argued that security personnel cannot be expected to fight terrorism with their hands tied. However, according to the Justice Jeevan Reddy committee report, the AFSPA can be replaced by an updated version of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act that takes into account security considerations and guarantees protection against abuse of power. In any case, the primary responsibility for maintaining law and order is with the police. In Jammu & Kashmir the police force is in need of appropriate training and equipment commensurate with ground realities, whereas the northeastern states have already achieved a significant degree of stability where the local police can take up greater security responsibilities. It`s time to think beyond AFSPA now.

Draconian Law - The Times of India
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is a legislation wherein under this Act, all security forces are given unrestricted and unaccounted power to carry out their operations, once an area is declared disturbed. Even a non-commissioned officer is granted the right to shoot to kill based on mere suspicion that it is necessary to do so in order to "maintain the public order".

The AFSPA gives the armed forces wide powers to shoot, arrest and search, all in the name of "aiding civil power."

The enforcement of the AFSPA has resulted in innumerable incidents of arbitrary detention, torture, rape, and looting by security personnel. This legislation is sought to be justified by the Government of India, on the plea that it is required to stop the North East states from seceeding from the Indian Union. There is a strong movement for self-determination which precedes the formation of the Indian Union.

These Sections are the crux of the discontent.

Section 4 This section sets out the powers granted to the military stationed in a disturbed area. These powers are granted to the commissioned officer, warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer, only a jawan does not have these powers. The Section allows the armed forces personnel to use force for a variety of reasons.

The army can shoot to kill, under the powers of section 4(a), for the commission or suspicion of the commission of the following offenses: acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons, carrying weapons, or carrying anything which is capable of being used as a fire-arm or ammunition. To justify the invocation of this provision, the officer need only be "of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of public order" and only give "such due warning as he may consider necessary".

The army can destroy property under section 4(b) if it is an arms dump, a fortified position or shelter from where armed attacks are made or are suspected of being made, if the structure is used as a training camp, or as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders.
The army can arrest anyone without a warrant under section 4(c) who has committed, is suspected of having committed or of being about to commit, a cognisable offense and use any amount of force "necessary to effect the arrest".

Under section 4(d), the army can enter and search without a warrant to make an arrest or to recover any property, arms, ammunition or explosives which are believed to be unlawfully kept on the premises. This section also allows the use of force necessary for the search.

Section 5: This section states that after the military has arrested someone under the AFSPA, they must hand that person over to the nearest police station with the "least possible delay". There is no definition in the act of what constitutes the least possible delay. Some case-law has established that 4 to 5 days is too long. But since this provision has been interpreted as depending on the specifics circumstances of each case, there is no precise amount of time after which the section is violated. The holding of the arrested person, without review by a magistrate, constitutes arbitrary detention.

Section 6: This section establishes that no legal proceeding can be brought against any member of the armed forces acting under the AFSPA, without the permission of the Central Government. This section leaves the victims of the armed forces abuses without a remedy.

The issues are:

1. Given the situation where foreign interests are fomenting unrest with the locals and foreign terrorist, is the application of this law draconian?

2. If it is draconian, what are the other methods by which can the terrorism be controlled, if not eliminated?

3. If the army cannot shoot to kill, under the powers of section 4(a), for the commission or suspicion of the commission of the following offenses: acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons, carrying weapons, or carrying anything which is capable of being used as a fire-arm or ammunition, then what should be the modus operandi to apprehend terrorists?

4. If on receiving information that terrorists are hiding in a house, what should be the modus operandi to apprehend or combat those terrorists. It must be noted the information given can never be conformed that the people hiding are terrorists. In other words, information is always in the realm of 'suspicion' unless the terrorists openly act as terrorists, which they never do overtly.

5. If a terrorist or terrorists are apprehended by the army in a remote and inhospitable area, which is a few days trek, what should be the 'least possible delay'?

6. Should the army interrogate apprehended terrorists before handing over to the civil authorities? If specialised interrogation is required, it is obvious that it will take some time because no one willingly gives information. It maybe mentioned that third degree only causes a prisoner to give information that pleases the interrogator and that maybe totally wrong. Hence, third degree is most unreliable.

7. If the Army awaits a warrant, then the terrorists can move away from the hideout since the warrant issuing authorities are not readily available nor are they based in rural areas or in remote area. Therefore, should the army await the issuing of a warrant for search?


Terrorism is the result of incorrect political policies. Terrorism cannot be controlled by force. It requires a political will and a political policy.

Internal Security is a matter that should be handled by the Police and not the Army. Therefore, why should the Army be always called out in aid to civil power, be it to rescue a child who has fallen in the well, or to clear a pond filled with water hyacinth as it is being done in Kolkata or for terrorism or for quelling riots?

If the police is not trained, which is the reason that is always trotted out, who is to blame? The Army or the very Govt. to include the J&K Govt that now claims that AFSPA is to be withdrawn in certain areas? Why only confine it to 'certain areas'? If indeed, it is draconian and there is gross misuse, it should be withdrawn from the whole state and the Central Govt should withdraw it from all parts of the country.

Or is this removal from 'certain areas' another political chicanery to appease ruffled feathers?

Also, if the AFSPA is removed, then there should be a guarantee that the Army will not be called out again when the situation goes out of hand and the Police alone should handle the issue.
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,853
Country flag
AFAIK, AFSPA is in force even in Ladakh and Jammu and Kargil sector. Can we have it just in the valley? What is your opinion on that - viable or not?

If it is viable, then this might be seen as a big step forward, IMHO.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
good news - asfpa to be removed from jammu, sambha, srinagar, badgam soon.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
good news - asfpa to be removed from jammu, sambha, srinagar, badgam soon.
True.

But what is the answer to control terrorism?

Politically seen, it is the non Valley areas where the Act is being lifted and Srinagar and Badgam is where the VIP and entourage stay!
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
i think intel needs to be beefed up so that the mysterious characters can be eliminated from the society by intel authorities. this will create hue and cry so proper channels for elimination and termination is required.
moreover afspa should go away from many of the J&K areas. it has to go someday or the other so why not asap make this a reality.

( i think it should be done in a way that we are making a huge favor and not just appeasing the separatist. good PR required)
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
AFSPA is not applicable in Ladhak and Kargil.

The Public Safety Act is in vogue in the entire State since 1978.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
The more pressing question is what is the answer to the kashmir issue ? The answer cannot be army, it has to be political in nature.
It has always been a political solution. There can be no military solution. The military can only assist the environment for the political process.

The Kashmir issue has been festering from 1947 - 48.

Has there ever been a political will to solve the issue?

The issue that keeps on surfacing is the application of the AFSPA.

If the AFSPA draconian, what is the solution?

If you have to await warrants to search, the terrorists will flee and find another hiding place.

If you cannot interrogate, valuable information to save lives and property, by their disclosures of their plans, hiding places, planned acts of immediate timeframe will be lost.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
Legal protection of Army is an absolute must, and adherence to Army command by people of the disturbed area; is also a must. You want the Army removed, Stop supporting Terrorists. Integrity of India cannot be questioned, they have no right, as the terms and conditions of Indian Union is more than fair. Oh, We dont like you because you are kuffar's, aint going to happen.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I would only mention that terrorist activities are fluid and they do not stay at a place too long.

The paramount importance to winning over terrorist is immediate and quick action and if one has to await the delays of red tape, then that magic moment is gone.

Atrocities are condemnable. However, if I am a terrorist sympathiser giving shelter to a terrorist, would I say that the Army action was fair and absolutely as per rules?

I would say, put Swami Agnivesh, Medha Patkar, Padgaonkar, Radha Kumari, Mickey Ansari, Helen of Roy in camouflage and ask them to do a CASO in a very polite way - the way they are advocating for solving the issue! I would be surprised if they do not become shaheeds to use a terrorist term!

If they survive, we could then ask them, how was it and what is the answer!

One can always pontificate in their ivory tower!

I would say let the politicians lead the way as leaders should. Drop having the gun toting NSG around and have no bullet proof vehicles.

Charity begins at home!
 
Last edited:

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
i think making kashmir a joint territory with pakistan is a good option. make kashmiris roam around in kashmir( both J&K and POK) with local govt dealing with every issue related to environment and municipality.
foreign policy of both India and pakistan should be changed to accommodate such jointly held territory. J&K will be shown in Indian map and PoK in pakistani map but this will be final thing. both currency can be used in the regions or currency exchanger should be there at every highway and rail stations for facilitating easy transaction. resources of this region as a whole will be 50% devoted to kashmiris and rest for the respective nations.

also the thought of gaining some sort of independence from any of the nation or going solo with any one nation should be constitutionally banned.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top