Upholding law and discipline: Army is swift, stern in dealing with violators

Some recent articles/reports on the ongoing cases in the Supreme Court against alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur between 1979 and 2012, related to the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) have yet again conveyed an emotional opinion without much evidence in support of ill-informed views expressed in them.

At the outset, certain facts require to be reiterated on these cases. The SC ordered a CBI-led investigation into only 99 cases out of the 1,528 cases of alleged extra-judicial killings claimed by Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association of Manipur, since the veracity of information provided by the association was not substantial enough to proceed further in the remaining cases. This, in itself, is ample proof that the case has been blown out of proportion merely to garner public attention by exaggerated figures.

Certain sections of the media have already passed their own judgment that all the deaths are murders committed by the security forces, whereas the SC has merely ordered an investigation into some cases, essentially to establish if they were genuine counter-terrorist operations or otherwise. It is in relation to these 99 cases that the CBI had filed 42 FIRs. Of these, only 19 FIRs relate to the Army/Assam Rifles (AR). Currently, the cases are only at the investigation stage and the charges are yet to be proven in court. Thus, it amounts to sensationalising the issue with superficial knowledge of the case and its proceedings.

In the case of the FIR filed against the Army personnel in Kashmir in a recent incident, the SC ordered that the Kashmir government shall take no coercive steps against the concerned Army personnel. This proves that facts have been conveniently misconstrued to sensationalise the issue for obvious reasons. The petition contesting the Kashmir government’s FIR against an Army officer has been filed by the officer’s father in his personal capacity and not by the Army. So, it is not the Army that seeks to protect itself from its citizens, but it is a case of a responsible father trying to protect his son from being victimised for vested interests.

Coming to an oft-raised question, “are soldiers above the law?” there needs to be a clear understanding of India’s internal security situation, the provisions of AFSPA and the military legal system. The universal parameters to assess the use of military force are: just cause, legality, last resort, proportionality and necessity. Therefore, any commentary on such a sensitive issue must be fully substantiated with a clear understanding of the past and prevailing security situations in the insurgency/terrorism infested states, whether in Punjab, J&K or Manipur.

The Army operates under AFSPA only when the prevailing security situation demands so. In 1980s and ’90s, due to the rise of terrorism and secessionist demands in J&K, Manipur and Punjab, the affected areas were notified as “disturbed areas” by either the state or the Central government. It is only after an area is declared as “disturbed”, due to the failure of the state government law and order machinery, that the Army is employed to bring the situation under control.

Undoubtedly, to operate in a disturbed area, where the state machinery, including the police, has been rendered incapable of discharging its duties due to the severe security situation, the armed forces that are employed to restore the law and order need enabling powers. These powers are imperative to allow conduct of operations and to safeguard soldiers acting in good faith from being pushed into unwarranted legal battles by vested interest groups. AFSPA does not empower soldiers to commit any extra-judicial unlawful act. The ongoing investigation by the CBI is only to establish whether the 19 cases occurred during bona fide military operation or otherwise. Their investigation must be allowed to take its course and bring out its findings, rather than naively or purposely concluding that all 1,528 deaths were murders.

Representations against the AFSPA and allegations against Army operations — often in the past and even more so now — are part of a well-orchestrated campaign against the fabric of our democracy by external agencies and vested interest groups. The aim is to demoralise the Army through a quagmire of legal battles and thereby undermine the ability of the organisation to fight efficiently. The other fact, missed out by many, is the timing of filing of cases. All the incidents referred to in the petition occurred between 1979 and 2012. The petition was filed in the SC in 2012, amounting to a lapse of over 30 years since the first incident. The long delay in filing of the cases poses a question towards its intent — whether genuine grievance or an afterthought or merely pressure is being applied at the behest of a third party. On the contrary, the brutality of terrorists born by the fact that since 1992, more than 2,000 innocent civilians have been killed in Manipur by various terrorist groups, is never condemned by the so-called human rights activists and organisations.

In the past 10 years, over 8,000 local youth of Manipur opting to join the Army/AR, apart from other Central Armed Police Forces, is a clear indication of the faith reposed in the Army/security forces.

There is no dearth today of human rights activists/pseudo-secularists/leftists/over-ground supporters of terrorists, etc, comfortably ensconced in air-conditioned environment, to comment on the conduct of operations by the Army/security forces deployed in disturbed areas. Army bashing is quite fashionable with this category. And it even extends to some of them, sometimes propagating utter lies. In a seminar held by human rights groups at Constitution Hall some years ago and attended largely by students, where this writer was the only armed forces related person present, it was shocking to hear one of the so-called learned speakers state: “The Indian Army is trained to carry out human rights violations!” When this writer intervened, many including the speaker were visibly shocked. In the tea break thereafter, they kept avoiding any meeting/discussion with this writer.

There is a need to question/ascertain as to how many of the accusers/commentators physically saw or know enough about the security situation in Manipur in the 1990s. Are they aware of the fact that terrorists had declared certain parts of the state as “liberated zones” where the writ of the government was seriously challenged?

The Army’s legal system is transparent, expeditious and stringent. Often, Pathribal and Machhil cases have been cited to argue that military courts have no transparency. Nothing can be further from the truth. Reposing faith in the Army’s legal system, the SC allowed the Army to conduct the trial of cases. In the Machhil incident, the Army unilaterally took cognisance of the complaint and proceeded with the investigation, resulting in five Army personnel, including the commanding officer of the unit, being tried and sentenced to jail. Moreover, since 1994, a total of 143 Army personnel have been punished for offences related to operations in J&K and the Northeast. Had the Army’s legal system been opaque or a sham, it would have failed to maintain a disciplined force of 1.2 million.

The Army has always placed the safety of our people to the fore. Is the “fashionable” category mentioned is aware of the bravery and chivalry of Army personnel during counter-terrorist operations or the Army’s role in countless instances of communal disturbances, riots and calamities/disasters and since Independence, including in flood relief, when soldiers have literally placed themselves as “human bridges”? Are they aware of the ethos of “service before self”, often exemplified through their deeds? While there are innumerable examples, Col. D.P.K. Pillai’s selfless deed in Tamenglong, Manipur in 1994, is one such inspiring story.

In any insurgency/terrorism-infested area, the local population remains the final arbiter for ushering in peace. The Army to people contact has remained the focus of all counter-terrorist operations. Adequate means exist in the system for the locals to seek redressal of grievances at various levels. Despite these mechanisms being in place, those with vested interests belittle an organisation that upholds the very values the nation stands for today. In the interest of the nation’s wellbeing and security, inadequately researched reports with imbalanced views, which shape negative public opinion, must be contested and corrected.

The writer, a retired Army officer, is a defence and security analyst based in New Delhi