- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
AFSPA: The Armed Forces Special Powers Act
- Thread starter A.V.
- Start date
I think people need to understand the debate here very clearly as most people are confused when they talk about repealing AFSPA.
AFSPA is a central act based on a 1942 colonial era provision that basically has some serious clauses like "shoot to kill" sanction with it. Debating the AFSPA and wether it should be repealed or reformed is one matter.
But this is COMPLETELY different from APPLYING AFSPA itself to a particular area in India. You can have the AFSPA act available,but NOT apply it anywhere in India. Only if there is a threat, then it would be applied.
Now coming to say the J&K situation or the NE situation. IMO AFSPA act should NOT be repealed in the parliament as if this is needed again, then we will need to pass the act again in the parliament or an ordinance at the very least.
AFSPA itself is applied when a state govt. notifies an area as Disturbed under the Disturbed Areas' Act. Once the state govt. denotifies an are, AFSPA automatically stops being applied there. Legally speaking, its a state govt. decision.
Now In Kashmir itself, there are areas where the army has not done any operation for the past 5 years. Areas like Srinagar or Budgam. There is no reason for it to be still declared disturbed. Similarly, Imphal in Manipur has been de-notified already without any problems.
If there are any problems, the J&K police and para military are more than enough to handle the situation. But of course the army should remain in the border areas to defend the country from external aggression. Internally, the people should be told by their elected reps that while an area is being de-notified, it can be notified as disturbed again and AFSPA applied if the militancy is uncontrollable by the local police.
However, given the fact that J&K police has been one of the finest in the country and its SOG has played a crucial role in breaking the back of the militancy there is nothing to worry about. The J&K police consists of indigenous security personnel who are better suited to police their communtiies than the Army which should focus on more seriously affected areas like the Maoists problem in Orissa, Jharkhand Chattisgarh regions.for COIN or the border regions of J&K and NE India.
AFSPA is a central act based on a 1942 colonial era provision that basically has some serious clauses like "shoot to kill" sanction with it. Debating the AFSPA and wether it should be repealed or reformed is one matter.
But this is COMPLETELY different from APPLYING AFSPA itself to a particular area in India. You can have the AFSPA act available,but NOT apply it anywhere in India. Only if there is a threat, then it would be applied.
Now coming to say the J&K situation or the NE situation. IMO AFSPA act should NOT be repealed in the parliament as if this is needed again, then we will need to pass the act again in the parliament or an ordinance at the very least.
AFSPA itself is applied when a state govt. notifies an area as Disturbed under the Disturbed Areas' Act. Once the state govt. denotifies an are, AFSPA automatically stops being applied there. Legally speaking, its a state govt. decision.
Now In Kashmir itself, there are areas where the army has not done any operation for the past 5 years. Areas like Srinagar or Budgam. There is no reason for it to be still declared disturbed. Similarly, Imphal in Manipur has been de-notified already without any problems.
If there are any problems, the J&K police and para military are more than enough to handle the situation. But of course the army should remain in the border areas to defend the country from external aggression. Internally, the people should be told by their elected reps that while an area is being de-notified, it can be notified as disturbed again and AFSPA applied if the militancy is uncontrollable by the local police.
However, given the fact that J&K police has been one of the finest in the country and its SOG has played a crucial role in breaking the back of the militancy there is nothing to worry about. The J&K police consists of indigenous security personnel who are better suited to police their communtiies than the Army which should focus on more seriously affected areas like the Maoists problem in Orissa, Jharkhand Chattisgarh regions.for COIN or the border regions of J&K and NE India.
A must read interview by former Home Secretary GK Pillai on the issue
'In Kashmir, everybody wants the status quo to continue' - Rediff.com News
Everybody has developed a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in Kashmir in spite of the fact that the ground situation there has improved, feels former home secretary G K Pillai.
In an interview with Bula Devi, he explains why the Armed Forces Special Powers Act need not be repealed, but it is high time the government considered lifting the Disturbed Areas Act.
The first of a two-part interview
How many times has the government set up committees to look into the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and what has happened to their recommendations?
Basically, the main review was by the Justice B P Jeevan Reddy Committee, which was set up after the Manorama episode (who was raped and killed in Manipur, which led to widespread protests). The committee even had a retired army general as a member and it gave a unanimous report. Surprisingly, the report has neither been accepted nor rejected by the government.
It has not been placed before Parliament also. Why?
It is because they (government) have not taken a view on it. It is still, as they say, under examination. But, I think there is a misunderstanding in the public about the AFSPA. The fact is that to impose the AFSPA, the state government has to declare an area as disturbed, whether in a district or the entire state or a part of a state. Normally they do it district-wise, they don't do it in the whole state.
So if an area is not declared as disturbed, the AFSPA doesn't come into play there. For instance, Manipur has declared that the Imphal municipal area is no longer disturbed and therefore, the army can't operate there.
I think it is the wordings in the act which has upset most people. It explicitly states 'fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death'. This is not true for any other act. Under the CrPC you can kill somebody in self-defence; somebody attacks you and you hit back; but nobody says you can kill.
That is like giving a licence to kill...
Yes, even though it is a war time hangover from 1942, in colonial days they were not sensitive about people's issues and it still continues here. The army doesn't want any changes because they feel that removal of the clause (to the extent of causing death) would imply they can't kill. Therefore, they want status quo.
Earlier activists could point out any number of human rights violations in Nagaland. Today, the state is incident free but the whole of the state continues to be a disturbed area and nobody talks about AFSPA.
In Manipur, people talk of the AFSPA because there have been some major incidents in the valley and the Meitei women, the Meira Paibis, have come out very strongly against it.
When an area is declared disturbed through a notification, which is a very powerful notification, it really means that the civil government has failed, the police has failed, paramilitary forces have failed and now the army needs to come in and do the job. The question is can any democratic government keep that notification forever and ever? That is the crux of the issue.
I think governments have been in one sense very indifferent, very callous and careless. They have allowed the disturbed area notification to continue because every agency prefers a status quo.
Manipur and Nagaland were restricted areas for foreigners. But when I was joint secretary, North East, I said foreigners must be allowed. But the agencies were unwilling. I stuck my neck out and insisted on lifting it. I got some relaxation in some districts of Nagaland, some circuits of Manipur and so on.
I remember the then home secretary Kamal Pandey saying, 'everybody is against it, you stick your neck and if anything goes wrong your neck will be in the firing line'. I said I am willing to take that (risk). Nothing happened; no foreigner was killed or found spying.
Later, when I became the home secretary, all permits which the Centre used to issue were lifted, only the inner line permit from the state government is still required. So whether one is a British national or an American, they can go to the North East; they just need a permit from the state government but none from the government of India.
There is confusion about what will happen if a Disturbed Areas Act is denotified.
If it is said that certain areas are not disturbed it means the Disturbed Areas Act doesn't apply in those areas any longer and when the (Disturbed Areas) Act is lifted, the AFSPA is also lifted. The army won't operate in those areas because under the AFSPA, all the protection that the army gets and the actions they can take under its provisions won't be available to them.
Why does one need to repeal the AFSPA? Keep the act, one may need it on some other occasion, one cannot make another act again. The notification for disturbed area is just a gazette notification which can be done in an hour or so. If the situation in an area improves, it is lifted; if the situation worsens in that area, it can be imposed again.
Is the army vehemently opposed to lifting of the AFSPA from an area because they won't have the protection of the act?
Yes, the army won't have the protection, which is the main point. But my argument is different. My point is that if the situation has improved, why doesn't the government say that the area is not disturbed any longer?
Like what (Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister) Omar Abdullah is saying?
Yes. In fact, he started it almost a year ago. Last September, the Cabinet Committee on Security said let's move for relaxation of the disturbed areas. They made the reference and a communication went to the Unified Command, which set up a sub-committee, etc. But the army is just sitting on it; everybody wants the status quo to continue. See, over a period of time everybody has developed a vested interest in this.
What kind of vested interest?
One of the biggest owners of land in Jammu and Kashmir is the army. Like in Delhi, it has a big cantonment. But here nobody is bothered because Delhi is expanding with Gurgaon etc. But if you go to the Srinagar cantonment area, you will ask why does the army need so much land?
Srinagar is an urban city. But if one goes to downtown Srinagar, it is crowded, congested. If someone requires 10 acres or 50 acres of land where will he go? But the army has thousands of acres in the heart of the city.
If Srinagar is peaceful and the state government says it can handle the situation, the army can move out to some other place and release those 2000-3000 acres of land. With this land, about 10,000 people from downtown Srinagar can be relocated and given good housing as everywhere there is a pressure on land.
In Tripura, in the heart of the city, the Assam Rifles has 50 acres of land whereas there is no sports stadium and such things in the whole of Agartala. So the government said we have identified land outside, you give us this land, why do you want it in the middle of the city? As joint Secretary, North East, we shifted out Assam Rifles from the middle of Aizwal to a place 20 kms away. Why should they be there when Mizoram is a peaceful state? This is like having an army cantonment in the middle of Connaught Place.
It is like Kangla Fort (Manipur) ...
It is. People did not understand, they said it is real estate, politicians will sell the land. They said all that without realising that Kangla Fort is a very emotional issue for the Meiteis and that no chief minister of Manipur can touch even one inch of the Kangla Fort, they will kill him. Now it looks so beautiful; it is coming up so well, it's a great place for people to visit. It has been almost seven years now, not an inch has been given to anyone.
'In Kashmir, everybody wants the status quo to continue' - Rediff.com News
Everybody has developed a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in Kashmir in spite of the fact that the ground situation there has improved, feels former home secretary G K Pillai.
In an interview with Bula Devi, he explains why the Armed Forces Special Powers Act need not be repealed, but it is high time the government considered lifting the Disturbed Areas Act.
The first of a two-part interview
How many times has the government set up committees to look into the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and what has happened to their recommendations?
Basically, the main review was by the Justice B P Jeevan Reddy Committee, which was set up after the Manorama episode (who was raped and killed in Manipur, which led to widespread protests). The committee even had a retired army general as a member and it gave a unanimous report. Surprisingly, the report has neither been accepted nor rejected by the government.
It has not been placed before Parliament also. Why?
It is because they (government) have not taken a view on it. It is still, as they say, under examination. But, I think there is a misunderstanding in the public about the AFSPA. The fact is that to impose the AFSPA, the state government has to declare an area as disturbed, whether in a district or the entire state or a part of a state. Normally they do it district-wise, they don't do it in the whole state.
So if an area is not declared as disturbed, the AFSPA doesn't come into play there. For instance, Manipur has declared that the Imphal municipal area is no longer disturbed and therefore, the army can't operate there.
I think it is the wordings in the act which has upset most people. It explicitly states 'fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death'. This is not true for any other act. Under the CrPC you can kill somebody in self-defence; somebody attacks you and you hit back; but nobody says you can kill.
That is like giving a licence to kill...
Yes, even though it is a war time hangover from 1942, in colonial days they were not sensitive about people's issues and it still continues here. The army doesn't want any changes because they feel that removal of the clause (to the extent of causing death) would imply they can't kill. Therefore, they want status quo.
Earlier activists could point out any number of human rights violations in Nagaland. Today, the state is incident free but the whole of the state continues to be a disturbed area and nobody talks about AFSPA.
In Manipur, people talk of the AFSPA because there have been some major incidents in the valley and the Meitei women, the Meira Paibis, have come out very strongly against it.
When an area is declared disturbed through a notification, which is a very powerful notification, it really means that the civil government has failed, the police has failed, paramilitary forces have failed and now the army needs to come in and do the job. The question is can any democratic government keep that notification forever and ever? That is the crux of the issue.
I think governments have been in one sense very indifferent, very callous and careless. They have allowed the disturbed area notification to continue because every agency prefers a status quo.
Manipur and Nagaland were restricted areas for foreigners. But when I was joint secretary, North East, I said foreigners must be allowed. But the agencies were unwilling. I stuck my neck out and insisted on lifting it. I got some relaxation in some districts of Nagaland, some circuits of Manipur and so on.
I remember the then home secretary Kamal Pandey saying, 'everybody is against it, you stick your neck and if anything goes wrong your neck will be in the firing line'. I said I am willing to take that (risk). Nothing happened; no foreigner was killed or found spying.
Later, when I became the home secretary, all permits which the Centre used to issue were lifted, only the inner line permit from the state government is still required. So whether one is a British national or an American, they can go to the North East; they just need a permit from the state government but none from the government of India.
There is confusion about what will happen if a Disturbed Areas Act is denotified.
If it is said that certain areas are not disturbed it means the Disturbed Areas Act doesn't apply in those areas any longer and when the (Disturbed Areas) Act is lifted, the AFSPA is also lifted. The army won't operate in those areas because under the AFSPA, all the protection that the army gets and the actions they can take under its provisions won't be available to them.
Why does one need to repeal the AFSPA? Keep the act, one may need it on some other occasion, one cannot make another act again. The notification for disturbed area is just a gazette notification which can be done in an hour or so. If the situation in an area improves, it is lifted; if the situation worsens in that area, it can be imposed again.
Is the army vehemently opposed to lifting of the AFSPA from an area because they won't have the protection of the act?
Yes, the army won't have the protection, which is the main point. But my argument is different. My point is that if the situation has improved, why doesn't the government say that the area is not disturbed any longer?
Like what (Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister) Omar Abdullah is saying?
Yes. In fact, he started it almost a year ago. Last September, the Cabinet Committee on Security said let's move for relaxation of the disturbed areas. They made the reference and a communication went to the Unified Command, which set up a sub-committee, etc. But the army is just sitting on it; everybody wants the status quo to continue. See, over a period of time everybody has developed a vested interest in this.
What kind of vested interest?
One of the biggest owners of land in Jammu and Kashmir is the army. Like in Delhi, it has a big cantonment. But here nobody is bothered because Delhi is expanding with Gurgaon etc. But if you go to the Srinagar cantonment area, you will ask why does the army need so much land?
Srinagar is an urban city. But if one goes to downtown Srinagar, it is crowded, congested. If someone requires 10 acres or 50 acres of land where will he go? But the army has thousands of acres in the heart of the city.
If Srinagar is peaceful and the state government says it can handle the situation, the army can move out to some other place and release those 2000-3000 acres of land. With this land, about 10,000 people from downtown Srinagar can be relocated and given good housing as everywhere there is a pressure on land.
In Tripura, in the heart of the city, the Assam Rifles has 50 acres of land whereas there is no sports stadium and such things in the whole of Agartala. So the government said we have identified land outside, you give us this land, why do you want it in the middle of the city? As joint Secretary, North East, we shifted out Assam Rifles from the middle of Aizwal to a place 20 kms away. Why should they be there when Mizoram is a peaceful state? This is like having an army cantonment in the middle of Connaught Place.
It is like Kangla Fort (Manipur) ...
It is. People did not understand, they said it is real estate, politicians will sell the land. They said all that without realising that Kangla Fort is a very emotional issue for the Meiteis and that no chief minister of Manipur can touch even one inch of the Kangla Fort, they will kill him. Now it looks so beautiful; it is coming up so well, it's a great place for people to visit. It has been almost seven years now, not an inch has been given to anyone.
In the first part of this interview with Bula Devi, former home secretary G K Pillai had talked about why the Armed Forces Special Powers Act need not be repealed immediately but the Disturbed Areas Act should be lifted in Kashmir.
In the second and final part of the interview, he explains that no one wants to take a risk or bite the proverbial bullet in Kashmir, fearing that the situation might implode again.
'Omar is taking a risk, but it should be taken' - Rediff.com News
Once the AFSPA is imposed, it applies and protects all agencies -- CRPF, BSF, army, Assam Rifles etc. Why is it that only the army and the Assam Rifles are opposed to it? Is it because the CRPF and the BSF come under the home ministry and it has been in favour of lifting AFSPA from certain areas?
Yes, the army comes under the purview of the defence ministry while the CRPF and the BSF fall under the home ministry. My own feeling is that an elected government should take the decision whether the area is still disturbed or not.
Has it been a political failure that the AFSPA was allowed to continue in a place for so long?
Yes, of course, it is a complete political failure. You can check the graph of violent incidents and casualties when the act was brought in and the situation today. The killing has come down to 10 per cent of what it was when the Disturbed Areas Act was imposed. But the area still remains disturbed.
Why doesn't the government just say that the Disturbed Areas Act was notified when 100 people were killed and 1,000 incidents took place but now it is only 20 incidents and five killed? So, the basic political decision the government has to take is whether an area is not as disturbed as it used to be. Secondly, they have to see whether they can, without the army, manage the situation with better trained, better equipped police. If both the answers are yes then they should remove the Disturbed Areas Act. That is the decision they (government) are not taking.
Why?
It is all political. If one goes purely by the facts, Nagaland should not remain under the Disturbed Area Act but nobody is willing to take a stand.
I think it is public perception also that if the act is removed from a particular place, AFSPA still continues. In that case repeal the act but put it in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
But is it correct to impose the same harsh laws in some other act?
No, put it in a different way and don't have provisions to the extent of causing death. There are different ways of doing things such as in the case of corruption, where the act is being amended, if an application for sanction for prosecution has come and if you don't respond within 30 days it will be deemed sanctioned. If you say no, then you have to give reasons in writing which becomes justiciable and one can go to court.
Have similar provisions here. In the Pathribal case, the army -- meaning the ministry of defence -- still hasn't given its sanction. Then they should say we are not giving sanction because the army personnel were innocent. In that case, the people can go to court. But the army will neither give this nor that.
When the Guwahati high court as well as the Supreme Court have upheld the AFSPA, then what is the way out?
The constitutional validity was upheld because courts are a little bit pro-government when it comes to national security and it involves secession, Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir. But courts put down very clear cut dos and don'ts. For instance, they said the army can arrest but cannot interrogate because interrogation is the prerogative of the police.
They said hand them over to the police as soon as possible, within 24 hours, etc. So many killings and so-called torture will not happen if the army hands them over quickly. But the army keeps them for two-three days and violates the Supreme Court direction. There are many other dos and don'ts. That is why all these incidents like Malom, where 10 people standing at the bus stand, were fired at and killed (happen).
If one carries out genuine terrorist action and somebody gets killed, where is the protest? Terrorists fire at you, you fire back; you conduct a raid in a hideout, terrorist shoots at you and you shoot back, where is the protest? Mischiefs do happen. But I would say that in 90 per cent of the cases, people protest when they feel that something unjust has taken place.
So where the Disturbed Areas Act is removed, AFSPA also is automatically lifted?
My point is the AFSPA should not be repealed but the Disturbed Areas Act should go if the situation improves in a particular area. The act is needed. It is required because suppose tomorrow I need the army, I cannot go back to Parliament and get an ordinance issued. By then it will be too late. So the AFSPA should remain.
But why should Srinagar remain disturbed for 21 years? The army has not operated in Budgam for the past five years. There has not been any incident in which the army has gone and raided any house in Budgam for the past five years. So what is the army's interest in staying there? The army will of course say that there is the risk factor of someone firing at them when they move from one place to another because they need to pass through Budgam. Well, if someone fires at you, what do you do? You fire back in self-defence. When they (militants) haven't fired at you with the act, why should they fire at you without the act?
But there is also an argument that there can be a regrouping of militants if the Disturbed Areas Act is lifted, and precious time may get wasted in procedural matters for the army to act?
No, the army won't act. Like in the Imphal municipal area, one may say all the bad guys are in that area. But let the state government handle it; after all it was the state government's decision to lift the Disturbed Areas Act from there. So there is no army in the Imphal municipal area.
The army's argument was their men have to go to Imphal, they have to go to the airport to catch a flight and so on. But has any army man been killed in the Imphal municipal area? On the other hand, policemen, civilians and militants have been killed.
The army has not operated in Srinagar for the past so many years. Last year, when 110 people were killed, the army stayed in the barracks. All the killings were by the police and the CRPF. So what is the army claiming? They should stay in the barracks; when we call the army, they will have the protection.
When Omar Abdullah is saying lift the Disturbed Areas Act, he is taking a risk. The risk should be taken. If something happens, he can say that he was told the situation had improved, so he took the decision and lifted the act.
He should tell the people that now it is for them to maintain peace and not allow militants to create problems because if the situation worsens, he can re-impose it and the army will be back there again. So he should tell the people that the choice is theirs. I am sure the people will say that we would rather not have the army there. In Kashmir, I think the presence of the army is overbearing. We removed nearly 27 bunkers from Srinagar in the past one year. Has anything happened?
This time, 10 lakh tourists came and it's good for the tourists also that they don't see chaps with machine guns standing around. Tourists also feel the situation is normal and it was normal.
But I think people are not willing to take a decision, they are not willing to bite the bullet. What's the risk? If the situation worsens, reimpose the act.
In the second and final part of the interview, he explains that no one wants to take a risk or bite the proverbial bullet in Kashmir, fearing that the situation might implode again.
'Omar is taking a risk, but it should be taken' - Rediff.com News
Once the AFSPA is imposed, it applies and protects all agencies -- CRPF, BSF, army, Assam Rifles etc. Why is it that only the army and the Assam Rifles are opposed to it? Is it because the CRPF and the BSF come under the home ministry and it has been in favour of lifting AFSPA from certain areas?
Yes, the army comes under the purview of the defence ministry while the CRPF and the BSF fall under the home ministry. My own feeling is that an elected government should take the decision whether the area is still disturbed or not.
Has it been a political failure that the AFSPA was allowed to continue in a place for so long?
Yes, of course, it is a complete political failure. You can check the graph of violent incidents and casualties when the act was brought in and the situation today. The killing has come down to 10 per cent of what it was when the Disturbed Areas Act was imposed. But the area still remains disturbed.
Why doesn't the government just say that the Disturbed Areas Act was notified when 100 people were killed and 1,000 incidents took place but now it is only 20 incidents and five killed? So, the basic political decision the government has to take is whether an area is not as disturbed as it used to be. Secondly, they have to see whether they can, without the army, manage the situation with better trained, better equipped police. If both the answers are yes then they should remove the Disturbed Areas Act. That is the decision they (government) are not taking.
Why?
It is all political. If one goes purely by the facts, Nagaland should not remain under the Disturbed Area Act but nobody is willing to take a stand.
I think it is public perception also that if the act is removed from a particular place, AFSPA still continues. In that case repeal the act but put it in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
But is it correct to impose the same harsh laws in some other act?
No, put it in a different way and don't have provisions to the extent of causing death. There are different ways of doing things such as in the case of corruption, where the act is being amended, if an application for sanction for prosecution has come and if you don't respond within 30 days it will be deemed sanctioned. If you say no, then you have to give reasons in writing which becomes justiciable and one can go to court.
Have similar provisions here. In the Pathribal case, the army -- meaning the ministry of defence -- still hasn't given its sanction. Then they should say we are not giving sanction because the army personnel were innocent. In that case, the people can go to court. But the army will neither give this nor that.
When the Guwahati high court as well as the Supreme Court have upheld the AFSPA, then what is the way out?
The constitutional validity was upheld because courts are a little bit pro-government when it comes to national security and it involves secession, Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir. But courts put down very clear cut dos and don'ts. For instance, they said the army can arrest but cannot interrogate because interrogation is the prerogative of the police.
They said hand them over to the police as soon as possible, within 24 hours, etc. So many killings and so-called torture will not happen if the army hands them over quickly. But the army keeps them for two-three days and violates the Supreme Court direction. There are many other dos and don'ts. That is why all these incidents like Malom, where 10 people standing at the bus stand, were fired at and killed (happen).
If one carries out genuine terrorist action and somebody gets killed, where is the protest? Terrorists fire at you, you fire back; you conduct a raid in a hideout, terrorist shoots at you and you shoot back, where is the protest? Mischiefs do happen. But I would say that in 90 per cent of the cases, people protest when they feel that something unjust has taken place.
So where the Disturbed Areas Act is removed, AFSPA also is automatically lifted?
My point is the AFSPA should not be repealed but the Disturbed Areas Act should go if the situation improves in a particular area. The act is needed. It is required because suppose tomorrow I need the army, I cannot go back to Parliament and get an ordinance issued. By then it will be too late. So the AFSPA should remain.
But why should Srinagar remain disturbed for 21 years? The army has not operated in Budgam for the past five years. There has not been any incident in which the army has gone and raided any house in Budgam for the past five years. So what is the army's interest in staying there? The army will of course say that there is the risk factor of someone firing at them when they move from one place to another because they need to pass through Budgam. Well, if someone fires at you, what do you do? You fire back in self-defence. When they (militants) haven't fired at you with the act, why should they fire at you without the act?
But there is also an argument that there can be a regrouping of militants if the Disturbed Areas Act is lifted, and precious time may get wasted in procedural matters for the army to act?
No, the army won't act. Like in the Imphal municipal area, one may say all the bad guys are in that area. But let the state government handle it; after all it was the state government's decision to lift the Disturbed Areas Act from there. So there is no army in the Imphal municipal area.
The army's argument was their men have to go to Imphal, they have to go to the airport to catch a flight and so on. But has any army man been killed in the Imphal municipal area? On the other hand, policemen, civilians and militants have been killed.
The army has not operated in Srinagar for the past so many years. Last year, when 110 people were killed, the army stayed in the barracks. All the killings were by the police and the CRPF. So what is the army claiming? They should stay in the barracks; when we call the army, they will have the protection.
When Omar Abdullah is saying lift the Disturbed Areas Act, he is taking a risk. The risk should be taken. If something happens, he can say that he was told the situation had improved, so he took the decision and lifted the act.
He should tell the people that now it is for them to maintain peace and not allow militants to create problems because if the situation worsens, he can re-impose it and the army will be back there again. So he should tell the people that the choice is theirs. I am sure the people will say that we would rather not have the army there. In Kashmir, I think the presence of the army is overbearing. We removed nearly 27 bunkers from Srinagar in the past one year. Has anything happened?
This time, 10 lakh tourists came and it's good for the tourists also that they don't see chaps with machine guns standing around. Tourists also feel the situation is normal and it was normal.
But I think people are not willing to take a decision, they are not willing to bite the bullet. What's the risk? If the situation worsens, reimpose the act.
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
Their were Operation and even not long ago, Not many things Media reports, It is part of a disturbed area..
Indeed J&K police are armed and good, But not mature enough so does SOG in numbers also in experience, Paramilitary like BSF and CRPF other are mainly concentrated here not army but called when needed, I have made clear and in brief in early post in this thread..
To Understand the security and its implication visa versa to threads one should see the structure's and working of RR with Paramilitary and Police, Anyone removed the situation will distabalise the entire region..
Over Kashmir IA fighting Foreign and Domestic militant in influence of Foreign countey against India, Naxal problem is pure domestic and self created and solution is Armed Police and Local Police, Army is strength is low and strech along both fronts already, Though training is responsibility of Army..
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2011
- Messages
- 109
- Likes
- 13
I think omar abdullah should stay away from this issue.... AFSPA is hell important for proper protection of key parts of J&k also, its no secret that many of the separatist groups are heavily supported by political groups (people like gilani) without special powers, incidences like those that happened on 26th Jan this year will continue to happen and will even enhance separatism... its better to keep a tight check on millitant activities...
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
To defeat any system the first rule is to create chaos within the system.. ( Political Hurriyet and Terrorist Jaish-e-Mohammed , lashkar-e-taiba )
The second blow is to add pressure from outside to squeeze the other out.. ( PA & PLA )
The objective is clear..
Though i am not counting Omar as part of this theory..
The second blow is to add pressure from outside to squeeze the other out.. ( PA & PLA )
The objective is clear..
Though i am not counting Omar as part of this theory..
Last edited:
Galaxy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,086
- Likes
- 3,934
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 43,132
- Likes
- 23,835
Having just toured J&K, I wonder if removing AFSPA will work.
There are places where it is relatively calm. These are the areas where the terrorists are trying to inflitrate.
If there is no AFSPA and one gets the whiff that they have crossed, none would apprehend them since they are not protected and they themselves may get into trouble, if the terrorist spins some coc.k and bull story with the many human rights organisations, which has come to light are being foreign funded to create problems and demonise the Army for ulterior purposes in keeping with the requirement of the foreign countries.
In passing I would like to remind all that any serviceman or policeman who has served in J&K does not get a visa to visit Canada since Canada takes it that all who have served in J&K are guilty of human rights abuses!
The Indian Army chaps are also human. They will decide no protection for them by law, then no action by them either!
What will happen then?
Ideally, there should be no AFSPA in any part of the country and let the Police take over and let the State Govts solve their problems. After all, the State Govts know best and law and order is a Police and State problem and not that of the Army. I am all for it!
It will reduce the strain on the Army, reduce their manpower and so the turnover will be faster and more time can be spent by the Army units in family station and more time with their family so that more interaction with their families is feasible and education of children not so badly disturbed wherein 11 schools in 12 years has to be seen for the army children!
There are places where it is relatively calm. These are the areas where the terrorists are trying to inflitrate.
If there is no AFSPA and one gets the whiff that they have crossed, none would apprehend them since they are not protected and they themselves may get into trouble, if the terrorist spins some coc.k and bull story with the many human rights organisations, which has come to light are being foreign funded to create problems and demonise the Army for ulterior purposes in keeping with the requirement of the foreign countries.
In passing I would like to remind all that any serviceman or policeman who has served in J&K does not get a visa to visit Canada since Canada takes it that all who have served in J&K are guilty of human rights abuses!
The Indian Army chaps are also human. They will decide no protection for them by law, then no action by them either!
What will happen then?
Ideally, there should be no AFSPA in any part of the country and let the Police take over and let the State Govts solve their problems. After all, the State Govts know best and law and order is a Police and State problem and not that of the Army. I am all for it!
It will reduce the strain on the Army, reduce their manpower and so the turnover will be faster and more time can be spent by the Army units in family station and more time with their family so that more interaction with their families is feasible and education of children not so badly disturbed wherein 11 schools in 12 years has to be seen for the army children!
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
Galaxy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,086
- Likes
- 3,934
Reassure the army on AFSPA
Reassure the army on AFSPA
A trooper of the Central Reserve Police Force confronts stone-pelting during the valley-wide street protests in Kashmir in the summer of 2010
by Ajai Shukla , Business Standard, 13th Dec 11
India is witnessing a bitterly polarised debate over J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's proposal to revoke the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Power Act (AFSPA) from Srinagar and Badgam districts in Kashmir; and from Jammu and Samba in the Jammu region. Abdullah, backed by broad swathes of the media, wants a peace dividend for Kashmir after a year of relative normalcy. This could be provided, he says, by loosening AFSPA, an emergency law that has since 1990 given army soldiers in J&K the legal backing to search, apprehend and shoot to kill. The army, backed opportunistically by the BJP, insists that the fragility of the current peace makes it too early to loosen AFSPA.
In its opposition to loosening AFSPA, the army has been painted as an unreasoning bully with an aversion to Kashmiris and a pernicious addiction to violence. This is not true. The army has, in fact, offered a persuasive counter-argument in meetings of the Unified Command Headquarters with Omar Abdullah, listening in. But since the military seldom leaks or tweets, its viewpoint remains unreported.
AFSPA, which was first imposed in 1958 across the northeast in response to the Naga uprising, was legislated by parliament for J&K on 5th July 1990, when Azaadi-chanting mobs took over swathes of the valley. AFSPA's special powers apply in "disturbed areas" that must be notified by New Delhi or the J&K Governor in the Official Gazette. [This is commonly confused with the "Disturbed Areas Act", a separate J&K legislation that gave additional powers to the J&K Police in 1992. This lapsed in 1997, when it was not renewed] Today Abdullah wants the denotification of Srinagar, Badgam, Jammu and Samba as "disturbed areas" under Section 3 of AFSPA.
The army says not yet, because Kashmir presents not just a law and order problem but an existential threat to India. It rebuts the J&K CM's assurance that AFSPA can easily be re-imposed if the situation deteriorates; arguing that this might be politically impossible. It worries about the logistical lifelines to army outposts on the Line of Control, which run through Srinagar and Badgam. The generals reject Abdullah's contention that the army does not operate in Srinagar and Badgam and, therefore, does not need AFSPA there; they say that while the CRPF mans city check posts, army columns dominate the rest of these districts to keep militants at bay. The approaches to Srinagar airfield, used by civilian airliners and military aircraft, are secured by the military. Within Srinagar itself lies the massive cantonment of Badami Bagh, headquarters of 15 Corps, which is responsible for the defence of the valley.
Top military commanders tell Abdullah that the peace of 2011 was a tactical pause after three straight years of "intifada-type" street agitation. This would let a fatigued populace recover; intensify participation from intellectuals and students; and neutralise the J&K Police. After this mid-course correction, 2012 could well see a resumption of the agitation.
The army rejects Abdullah's implicit assumption that J&K has transitioned from conflict to "post conflict stablisation". Pakistan's foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar apparently urged Kashmiri hard liner, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, during their meeting in Delhi in July to prepare for a long struggle still ahead. Equally worrying for the army is Srinagar's slothfulness in reintegrating over 20,000 surrendered militants, who could rejoin a reinvigorated struggle.
Running alongside the army's security case is a competing narrative of political transformation. After 3 years of street protests in Kashmir, Chidambaram's Rajya Sabha speech on 5th Aug 2010, admitting that J&K was "a unique problem requiring a unique solution", was followed by sustained internal peace building. That autumn, a massive rally at Langate, in north Kashmir, saw participants renouncing violent protest if human rights violations were prevented. Then Kashmir's moderate separatists spoke out against killings by militants after Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith leader, Maulana Showkat Shah, was assassinated in Srinagar in April. Forced by popular Kashmiri pressure, the Lashkar-e-Toiba issued an apology. The peace of 2011 and record tourist arrivals in Srinagar are a reality; the army's prediction of the coming storm may remain just an apprehension.
What neither side will contest is that AFSPA has become a lightning rod for Kashmiri discontent. It has developed into an evocative symbol of repression, resulting in the army being besmirched in controversies in which it played no part, such as the police firing on Kashmiri demonstrators in 2010. It has also allowed ISI propagandists like Ghulam Nabi Fai to propagate the notion of "India's military repression of Kashmiris."
AFSPA presents an urgent political decision. New Delhi must decide whether J&K is still a conflict zone or whether it is time to reinforce Kashmiri peace. Omar Abdullah is sagacious in declaring that this cannot be a public debate.
If AFSPA is to be loosened, the army's concerns must be assuaged. Key parties in J&K, and the main national parties, must reassure the army that the re-imposition of AFSPA will not be politicised. Kashmiri separatist and citizen groups must pledge not to allow protests to interfere with army movements to and from the border. A refusal to provide such a commitment would place on them the onus for AFSPA's continuation. The state administration would need to permanently position J&K policemen and magistrates with army formations so that operations can be launched in a non-AFSPA environment without delay or leakage of information. Most importantly, a focused internal political dialogue must be launched in Kashmir to reassure the army that yet another hard-won peace will not be squandered by political lethargy.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/12/reassure-army-on-afspa.html?
Reassure the army on AFSPA
A trooper of the Central Reserve Police Force confronts stone-pelting during the valley-wide street protests in Kashmir in the summer of 2010
by Ajai Shukla , Business Standard, 13th Dec 11
India is witnessing a bitterly polarised debate over J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's proposal to revoke the Armed Forces (J&K) Special Power Act (AFSPA) from Srinagar and Badgam districts in Kashmir; and from Jammu and Samba in the Jammu region. Abdullah, backed by broad swathes of the media, wants a peace dividend for Kashmir after a year of relative normalcy. This could be provided, he says, by loosening AFSPA, an emergency law that has since 1990 given army soldiers in J&K the legal backing to search, apprehend and shoot to kill. The army, backed opportunistically by the BJP, insists that the fragility of the current peace makes it too early to loosen AFSPA.
In its opposition to loosening AFSPA, the army has been painted as an unreasoning bully with an aversion to Kashmiris and a pernicious addiction to violence. This is not true. The army has, in fact, offered a persuasive counter-argument in meetings of the Unified Command Headquarters with Omar Abdullah, listening in. But since the military seldom leaks or tweets, its viewpoint remains unreported.
AFSPA, which was first imposed in 1958 across the northeast in response to the Naga uprising, was legislated by parliament for J&K on 5th July 1990, when Azaadi-chanting mobs took over swathes of the valley. AFSPA's special powers apply in "disturbed areas" that must be notified by New Delhi or the J&K Governor in the Official Gazette. [This is commonly confused with the "Disturbed Areas Act", a separate J&K legislation that gave additional powers to the J&K Police in 1992. This lapsed in 1997, when it was not renewed] Today Abdullah wants the denotification of Srinagar, Badgam, Jammu and Samba as "disturbed areas" under Section 3 of AFSPA.
The army says not yet, because Kashmir presents not just a law and order problem but an existential threat to India. It rebuts the J&K CM's assurance that AFSPA can easily be re-imposed if the situation deteriorates; arguing that this might be politically impossible. It worries about the logistical lifelines to army outposts on the Line of Control, which run through Srinagar and Badgam. The generals reject Abdullah's contention that the army does not operate in Srinagar and Badgam and, therefore, does not need AFSPA there; they say that while the CRPF mans city check posts, army columns dominate the rest of these districts to keep militants at bay. The approaches to Srinagar airfield, used by civilian airliners and military aircraft, are secured by the military. Within Srinagar itself lies the massive cantonment of Badami Bagh, headquarters of 15 Corps, which is responsible for the defence of the valley.
Top military commanders tell Abdullah that the peace of 2011 was a tactical pause after three straight years of "intifada-type" street agitation. This would let a fatigued populace recover; intensify participation from intellectuals and students; and neutralise the J&K Police. After this mid-course correction, 2012 could well see a resumption of the agitation.
The army rejects Abdullah's implicit assumption that J&K has transitioned from conflict to "post conflict stablisation". Pakistan's foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar apparently urged Kashmiri hard liner, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, during their meeting in Delhi in July to prepare for a long struggle still ahead. Equally worrying for the army is Srinagar's slothfulness in reintegrating over 20,000 surrendered militants, who could rejoin a reinvigorated struggle.
Running alongside the army's security case is a competing narrative of political transformation. After 3 years of street protests in Kashmir, Chidambaram's Rajya Sabha speech on 5th Aug 2010, admitting that J&K was "a unique problem requiring a unique solution", was followed by sustained internal peace building. That autumn, a massive rally at Langate, in north Kashmir, saw participants renouncing violent protest if human rights violations were prevented. Then Kashmir's moderate separatists spoke out against killings by militants after Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith leader, Maulana Showkat Shah, was assassinated in Srinagar in April. Forced by popular Kashmiri pressure, the Lashkar-e-Toiba issued an apology. The peace of 2011 and record tourist arrivals in Srinagar are a reality; the army's prediction of the coming storm may remain just an apprehension.
What neither side will contest is that AFSPA has become a lightning rod for Kashmiri discontent. It has developed into an evocative symbol of repression, resulting in the army being besmirched in controversies in which it played no part, such as the police firing on Kashmiri demonstrators in 2010. It has also allowed ISI propagandists like Ghulam Nabi Fai to propagate the notion of "India's military repression of Kashmiris."
AFSPA presents an urgent political decision. New Delhi must decide whether J&K is still a conflict zone or whether it is time to reinforce Kashmiri peace. Omar Abdullah is sagacious in declaring that this cannot be a public debate.
If AFSPA is to be loosened, the army's concerns must be assuaged. Key parties in J&K, and the main national parties, must reassure the army that the re-imposition of AFSPA will not be politicised. Kashmiri separatist and citizen groups must pledge not to allow protests to interfere with army movements to and from the border. A refusal to provide such a commitment would place on them the onus for AFSPA's continuation. The state administration would need to permanently position J&K policemen and magistrates with army formations so that operations can be launched in a non-AFSPA environment without delay or leakage of information. Most importantly, a focused internal political dialogue must be launched in Kashmir to reassure the army that yet another hard-won peace will not be squandered by political lethargy.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/12/reassure-army-on-afspa.html?
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,768
- Likes
- 10,311
Give us a chance and we'll throw out AFSPA, Mamata tells Manipur
Congress, though in power for long, has failed to deliver
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday played the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act card in Manipur and promised voters that if her Trinamool Congress came to power in the State, it would not allow the "draconian law" and the "army rule" to continue.
At an election rally here, Ms. Banerjee urged voters to throw the Congress out of power. The TMC is contesting 47 of the 60 seats in Manipur, which is going to the polls on January 28. Both parties are allies in the UPA government at the Centre.
"I met Ms Irom Sharmila [who has been on a hunger strike for 11 years seeking repeal of the AFSPA]. She told me that the AFSPA is draconian law. If TMC comes to power, I can assure [you], we will fight. We will not give consent for continuance of the draconian law," Ms Banrejee said amidst thunderous clapping of hands and waving of the party flags.
Immediately on her arrival, Ms Banerjee drove straight to the J.N. Institute of Medical Sciences in Imphal to meet Ms. Sharmila, who has been on a fast-unto-death since November 4, 2000 — when 10 innocent persons were killed by troopers of 8 Assam Rifles.
Ms. Banerjee said AFSPA continuance was a fault of the policymakers who had not taken the common people into confidence while taking the decision. It was wrong to believe that only "Army rule" can ensure peace.
"If we can solve the problem of [Maoist-infested] Jangalmahal in West Bengal within eight months, I think we can also solve the problem of Manipur." She said her government had promised a package there and released so many political prisoners who had been jailed for life.
Targeting the Congress, Ms. Banerjee said the party, which had been in power in Manipur for so many years, failed to deliver. Also corruption was very high in the State, she alleged and asked where had 90 per cent of the money allocated for building roads and other projects gone. She had seen the "horrible condition" of roads which, she said, were full of dust.
"If they cannot do their job, if they cannot perform, then let's throw them out. Give a new opportunity to a new party," she appealed to the crowd.
Describing West Bengal as the gateway of the northeast, Ms. Banerjee promised the voters that it would extend all help in setting up industries and promoting tourism in Manipur. The TMC would promote Manipuri culture and tribal culture.
Congress, though in power for long, has failed to deliver
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday played the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act card in Manipur and promised voters that if her Trinamool Congress came to power in the State, it would not allow the "draconian law" and the "army rule" to continue.
At an election rally here, Ms. Banerjee urged voters to throw the Congress out of power. The TMC is contesting 47 of the 60 seats in Manipur, which is going to the polls on January 28. Both parties are allies in the UPA government at the Centre.
"I met Ms Irom Sharmila [who has been on a hunger strike for 11 years seeking repeal of the AFSPA]. She told me that the AFSPA is draconian law. If TMC comes to power, I can assure [you], we will fight. We will not give consent for continuance of the draconian law," Ms Banrejee said amidst thunderous clapping of hands and waving of the party flags.
Immediately on her arrival, Ms Banerjee drove straight to the J.N. Institute of Medical Sciences in Imphal to meet Ms. Sharmila, who has been on a fast-unto-death since November 4, 2000 — when 10 innocent persons were killed by troopers of 8 Assam Rifles.
Ms. Banerjee said AFSPA continuance was a fault of the policymakers who had not taken the common people into confidence while taking the decision. It was wrong to believe that only "Army rule" can ensure peace.
"If we can solve the problem of [Maoist-infested] Jangalmahal in West Bengal within eight months, I think we can also solve the problem of Manipur." She said her government had promised a package there and released so many political prisoners who had been jailed for life.
Targeting the Congress, Ms. Banerjee said the party, which had been in power in Manipur for so many years, failed to deliver. Also corruption was very high in the State, she alleged and asked where had 90 per cent of the money allocated for building roads and other projects gone. She had seen the "horrible condition" of roads which, she said, were full of dust.
"If they cannot do their job, if they cannot perform, then let's throw them out. Give a new opportunity to a new party," she appealed to the crowd.
Describing West Bengal as the gateway of the northeast, Ms. Banerjee promised the voters that it would extend all help in setting up industries and promoting tourism in Manipur. The TMC would promote Manipuri culture and tribal culture.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,768
- Likes
- 10,311
these cockroaches will even sell their mother's pussy to the vote-bank.
i am changing my nationality and loyalty. i would better support a terrorist nation rather than our corrupt politicians and fkcued up country. at-least the terrorist nation have some kind of vision, a destination and a goal.
nothing good will happen to this country.. iss desh ka kuch nahi hosakta.
<--- this is my new identity.
admin, please change my ID to"mustafa"
i am changing my nationality and loyalty. i would better support a terrorist nation rather than our corrupt politicians and fkcued up country. at-least the terrorist nation have some kind of vision, a destination and a goal.
nothing good will happen to this country.. iss desh ka kuch nahi hosakta.
<--- this is my new identity.
admin, please change my ID to"mustafa"
Last edited:
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gud Video On AFSPA Armed Forces Special Powers Act | Internal Security | 0 | |
|
Why is AFSPA necessary for India | Internal Security | 52 | |
|
Delhi has 'silently extended' harsh AFSPA act to my state:Arunachal CM | Internal Security | 12 | |
|
India rules out changes in AFSPA in Kashmir | Internal Security | 0 |
