IF NO AFSPA - WHO WILL FIGHT
INSURGENCY AND TERRORISM FOR INDIA?
Col Alok
Asthana ( Retired), THANE
356 serving personnel have approached
the S C with some prayer regarding the AFSPA.
The petition has drawn adverse comments from all sections of society,
which have not taken this act of serving personnel approaching the court,
lightly. Social media is ablaze with very strong comments, but they are just
opinions of individuals. It is only right that we allow them to have their say.
However, what worries the soldier community is the tone of responsible media.
India Express, one of the most respected newspapers of India, has published an
editorial – Crossing
the Line – on 22 August.
Since this must be treated as representative of the most responsible
voice of Indian media, it will benefit the nation if this editorial is
dissected.
The editorial is critical of the petition
on both counts - legal and ethical. Objecting to the legality of the points
made in the petition is really overstretching on part of the media since the
Supreme Court will, in any case, look into that pert. However, one should grant
the media the right to flag even legal issues. Besides objections on the
legality of the petition, the editorial also flags some ethical issues. And it
is here that the editorial I found to be at its weakest. More than just having
weak arguments, it is guilty of completely missing out the woods for the trees.
The Indian Express makes four main
points. Let us take each of them. Firstly, it says that It does not behove
members of an apolitical organization like the army to jump in the fray and act
as a pressure group to influence policy. The policy being referred to is the
invoking or revoking of AFSPA in a particular area, or its structure and
form. Second, it points out that the
petition could be violative of the rule of ‘no unions’. Thirdly, it is said to disturb the civil
military division of labour. Fourthly,
it talks of failure of internal mechanism to redress the failure and further
points out that people within the army are not abiding by the restrictions
imposed on them.
With respect to the first objection,
the editorial is widely off the mark to suggest that the petition seeks to
influence policy. The disparity between the allegation made in the editorial
and the prayer made in the petition is so large that one is forced to believe
that the editor has not read the petition and simply gone to press based on the
pre-conceived notions or after reading some social media posts. He who reads the petition in full will find
that the petitioners seek eight redresses, none of which seek any change in
policy. The present policy, or rather the fine print of the AFSPA is good
enough. The petitioners are not saying that the existing rule of ‘prosecution
after legal sanction’ should be changed to ‘no prosecution at all’. They are, however, pointing out that existing
provisions are being maliciously short-circuited by interested parties, it is
necessary to bring out those new facts to the notice whoever will listen. In all there are eight prayers in the
petition. Broadly, these are no undue harassment, no motivated FIRs, no behind
the curtain change in rules, sanctity of prior sanction, need to take into
account the operational realities, investigations into mischievous complaints,
no arbitrary use of executive power and due compensation for those harmed.
Which one of these eight is seeking any change in policy? In fact, none of the
eight are extra-ordinary demands nor is any a cause for undue concern. To an
objective viewer, they all seem like genuine concerns.
Of course, the media is within its
rights to raise the ethical question, as it indeed has done, that the army
people should not be going to court for this. And that question must be
answered.
Why should anyone not be able to seek
protection against possible harm in the future? Why should it be that everyone
in India, from a drunkard to a moral leper, is free to save himself from
possible harm, but not the soldiers? If these possible sources of future harm
are indeed true, where do the victims go if not to a proper forum like a court.
Would the country much rather that they don’t go to a court but pick up their
machine guns and go shooting to protest. In any case, they are not asking for
much – just a review. Judging from the respect the society normally accords to
the profession of arms, it seems that the soldiers should get something a
little more than others rather then something less.
While blaming the top leadership of
failing to sort it out internally, the editorial miserably fails in judging the
situation. In its earnestness to keep the blame within the army it has completely
missed out one critical crack in Indian army that this petition so clearly
shows.
The petition shows that at least 356
serving officers and soldiers, serving in sensitive insurgency-ridden areas,
have completely lost faith in its leadership to protect their interests – up to
their lives. So much so, that they have decided to take the unprecedented and
risky step to go to court for it. Now that is a real crack from which elephants
can slip through. Only one who has been in the army for long enough knows how
frustrated and option-less these 356 must have felt to take the extreme step of
going to court to achieve what they want to. They know that this may invite
possible invocation of the ‘no unions’ rule, laying the open to a
court-martial. In any case, they know that they will surely pay for this, in
other possible ways. But, still, they went ahead. To say that this is simply a
failure of internal mechanism of redress would be understating the case. It is
much more. It is clear sign of lack of faith in the existing system. And the
system under reference here is not just that which is controlled by the Army
Chief. It is one that is controlled by the Defence minister, and indirectly, by
the PM. They know that even if the Chief of the Army Staff wants to help, he
can do nothing about it and hence the only agency to approach is the Supreme
Court of India. Anything less will simply not do.
This is explosive. Veterans have, for
long, clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the way the army has been
steadily downgraded and victimized. Now, the serving soldiers too have joined
the fight. The bottom seems to have fallen off.
Can India brush it under the carpet?
Only at its grave peril, it seems.
On the same editorial page of Indian
Express, there is an article ‘Who
defends the defenders’ by Admiral Arun Prakash, However, the issue
is graver than ‘Who defends the defenders’. It is ‘Who’ll fight insurgency and
terrorism for India.’ It is not about the welfare of the soldiers but of that
of the Indian state. The editorial did not even hint at it.
The Indian Express is the best
newspaper India has. As long as they cover all relevant facts on such matters,
all criticism is welcome.
GO
TO -- HOME PAGE - LIST OF
ARTICLES - INDEX
TO SIGS PRVR
No comments:
Post a Comment