When it comes to the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, or AFSPA, opinions are as polarized as they come. While I resonate with the sentiment that national integrity must be preserved at all costs, I stand firmly against the existence of AFSPA. The reasons are many, and I'm ready to lay them out. But before diving into my case, let's first understand the perspectives of both its supporters and detractors—those who view AFSPA as a necessary shield and those who see it as a violation of fundamental rights..
People Who Support AFSPA
The Government is the main supporter of this Act. Since it was enacted in 1958, nearly every Government in India and all its Prime Ministers have utilized this Act to uphold the national integrity of India. The Law Commission, under Justice Jeevan Reddy, proposed a review of this legislation, but those recommendations were rejected by the Government. The Government had to reject that report because it cannot afford to repeal the Act.
People Who Oppose AFSPA
My understanding of the opposition to AFSPA has developed from a document by Amnesty International titled Briefing on the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. The article discusses how the Act causes violations of International Human Rights Law, including:
- Violation of the Right to Life
- Violation of the Right to Liberty and Security of a Person
- Torture, Ill-treatment, and Disappearances
- Violation of the Right to Remedy
They argue that the Indian Army violates provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a signatory. The report also highlights alleged abductions and killings of civilians in areas where this Act is applicable.
The Ideal Situation
The ideal situation for India would be one where there is no violence that could threaten the country's territorial integrity. However, the reality is that militancy exists in these areas, posing a potential threat. Those who oppose AFSPA should propose a plan that repeals the Act while also addressing the militancy problem. "Talks" are not a sufficient solution, as the Home Ministry has already been in dialogue with militants, and many have surrendered. However, this process will take time.
Personal Opinion
I believe that AFSPA should not exist, as there should be no violence in any part of the country. However, if violence does occur, the police should handle it immediately. The Armed Forces are like the sword of the country, and using them to curb violence in any part of India is akin to cutting vegetables with that same sword. The police in our states should be capable enough to deal with any challenges faced by the state. Unfortunately, the police in India are in a pathetic condition and severely underfunded, but I will leave that topic for another blog. Returning to my point, if we want to stop violence, we must first ensure that those who are not fighting the state are protected. We cannot allow any individual to undermine the credibility of Indian institutions, as reports like the one by Amnesty International do. It is not the Army's job to police; that responsibility lies with the police. The Indian Army is often tasked with jobs it should not be doing. As the quote from General Patton in the picture states, "I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." The Army has no choice but to use force to control the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment