Afspa removal: A positive step
The government has struck a balance between civilian concerns and security. It can do more
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is among the most controversial pieces of legislation implemented in independent India, one that has withstood censure by judicial committees and constitutional courts to earn the approval of successive governments at the Centre. Public opinion in the regions it is in force is hostile, and activists bemoan in particular two provisions — section 4, which authorises security personnel to open fire, arrest people without warrants, enter and search without warrant while enjoying immunity from prosecution; and section 6, which says no prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding can be instituted against any person under Afspa without prior sanction of the central government.
Last week, the Centre moved to shrink the operational jurisdiction of this law in Assam, Nagaland and Manipur, citing improved law and order situation and reduced militancy — a probable sign of the accords signed over the years, and peace talks underway in the Northeastern states. What was left unsaid was the growing frustration with the stringent law, one that peaked with the botched killing of 13 civilians in Nagaland’s Mon district last year, which prompted chief ministers to demand the Act’s repeal. The corrosive impact of Afspa on human rights and local populations is well documented. The BP Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) recommended that the law be repealed because it had become an “instrument of discrimination and high handedness”. In 2013, the JS Verma Committee hoped that Afspa would be revisited and suggested bringing sexual violence against women by security personnel under ordinary criminal law. Similarly, though the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in 1998, it held in 2016 that indefinite deployment of forces under Afspa mocked “democratic processes”. The court also underlined the unfortunate role of Afspa in undermining local civilian administrations, which have an insignificant role in law and order and governance, and hurting political processes.
Many of these debates date back to 1958 when the bill was first passed by the Lok Sabha. Yet, successive governments have made scant efforts to find a balance between local aspirations, human rights and security concerns. The withdrawal effected was a good step, but it must be followed by changing operating procedures, more respect for civilian populations, deliberation and consideration on prosecution requests against soldiers accused of human rights violations, and more dynamic assessment of security threats to ensure that the law is in place only where it is necessary. The government has shown it is possible to be receptive to civilian concerns without compromising on security. It can do more.