A serious politico-military condition prevails in the state of Manipur. The anger and seething resentment of the populace against the alleged killing of a woman by Assam Rifles personnel is palpably evident. The government of Manipur is apparently in a state of confusion on the way to assuage the public sentiment. The security forces are on the defensive and unable to act in a manner that can infuse confidence in the public. The Centre is sending mixed signals which will only exacerbate the already complex interplay of sentiment, prejudice and policy failure. In the absence of a coordinated and credible response from the Centre and the state government, public focus has shifted to the abrogation of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. That is not going to solve the problem.Manipur demonstrates the folly of a policy that gives primacy to instruments of coercion, and not involving the people in coping with internal armed conflict. Successive governments in New Delhi and in the northeastern states have relied heavily on the presence of the military to be able to perform the basic functions of governance. None has understood that the continued presence of the military on the streets of their towns reflects on the failure of the governing apparatus. The fundamental principle remains that military force cannot — and should not — be applied without adequate safeguards against possible misuse. Equally, the state should ensure the legal protection of the military in the performance of armed action in the national interest.It has become fashionable to describe the AFSPA as unlawful, repressive, in violation of human rights, etc. Much has been written about the powers of search, arrest and shooting the act bestows on military personnel. These arguments beg the question, how does a state expect the military to restore normalcy in a situation where armed militants are having the run of the day? When state armed police organisations are politicised, their efficiency is minimal, their loyalties to the state have been subverted, no system can restore order without adequate powers to the military.It would be useful to remember that a constitution bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in 1997 that the provisions of the act are not unreasonable or arbitrary. The bench comprised Justices J.S. Verma, M.M. Punchhi, S.C. Agrawal, A.S. Anand and S.P. Bharucha. Amongst those who had petitioned the court against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was Kapil Sibal, now a minister at the Centre.The problem in Manipur — or wherever the AFSPA has been applied — is not with the act but with the politics of its usage. Every state with militancy wants the army to operate in its territory. The military is expected to put down the rebellious group with force. The army therefore quite rightly asks that its operations, violent and forcible as they would be, are covered by legal protection. It insists that the AFSPA be promulgated. As a safeguard, the act cannot be promulgated before the area of its jurisdiction is declared as disturbed. The “disturbed area” provisions are an admission by the state that its writ does not run there, for which the army is brought in.The trouble in Manipur — and in other parts of the Northeast — is that instead of the AFSPA being applied in exceptional circumstances and for short durations, it has been made a permanent feature of governance. This is against the spirit and intended purpose of the act. Once promulgated, state governments — and not the army — are unwilling to let go of the act. There have been examples of chief ministers pleading for the continuation of the act, even when the army had done its job and wished to be relieved of the responsibility under the act. Instances have not been wanting where the army was asked to operate against one faction of the militants to suit the needs of local political leaders. There have been occasions when the political leadership has wanted the AFSPA to be applied without declaring the affected area as disturbed.Manipuris are an extraordinarily aware and articulate society. Their sense of right and wrong and their ability to see different sides of a case are unique. Such a polity should be an asset to its political leadership. The reality is sadly otherwise. Political leadership is faction ridden and prone to changing loyalties from one side to another to retain or regain ministerial positions. Consequently, political parties when in power demand the continued presence of the army, and oppose the same when in opposition. Search, arrests and occasionally shootouts occur with equal frequency in Manipur’s urban and rural areas. It is obvious that these raise anxieties, anger and protests against the army and the AFSPA.The issue in Manipur is therefore not of the AFSPA’s provisions. It is one of governing the state through the permanent presence of the military on the streets. The state’s political leadership cannot seek internal security from the military without legal provisions to safeguard its personnel. The AFSPA grants adequate powers to the military, but it also has checks and balances against misuse. The Disturbed Area Act and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act work in unison to safeguard the state, its citizens and its armed forces. To ask for abrogating the AFSPA misses the essential point. That is, whether a state should govern its citizens through the unending use of the military.The writer, a former lieutenant general, is director of the Delhi Policy Group
