Zero tolerance, AFSPA & fake encounters
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: August 18, 2014 -

Fraught with ambiguities, any keen observer would say.

The Narendra Modi Government's submission to the Supreme Court that it has adopted a zero tolerance approach towards fake encounters and any one guilty of such extra judicial killings would be dealt with sternly, is the one the opening sentence refers to.

The Union Home Ministry's submission was in response to a report submitted by the Supreme Court appointed Justice Santosh Hegde Commission which enquired into 13 fake encounter killings by armed forces and police in Manipur. The Commission found that all the 13 killings were clear cases of fake encounters.

The 13 cases were randomly picked up from amongst 1528 cases of alleged extra-judicial killings listed in a PIL filed by the Extra-Judicial Execution Victims Families Association of Manipur (EEVFAM) and the Human Rights Alert, Manipur.

The fundamental contention of EEVFAM and HRA is that AFSPA is being used by security forces as a shield which ordinary criminal laws find difficult to penetrate. The Union Home Ministry's response to the Supreme Court is ostensibly soothing but a closer scrutiny of the same revealed no element of game changer.

Rather the Home Ministry's statement manifested an over-protective tendency towards military personnel.

The Ministry's assertion that anyone found guilty for extrajudicial killing would be dealt with sternly sounds heartening but there are some substantial grey areas.

The foremost being the legal procedure of establishing someone (sic security personnel) as guilty and the most formidable obstacle to the legal procedure of adjudicating security personnel in places like Manipur is the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act or AFSPA in short.

Security personnel deployed in AFSPA-impaired areas are almost untouchable by ordinary laws. Then how could one establish any security personnel as guilty or otherwise.

The situation is quite akin to the proverbial interrogation "Who will bell the cat?" Again the Home Ministry said, "The Union Government shall not tolerate even one false encounter and shall not spare anyone guilty of false encounter, but at the same time, it is necessary to ensure that no innocent security personnel is harassed for an official act performed in good faith and without mala fide intention".

This particular statement is not only fraught with ambiguities but is also paradoxical. All the allegations of excesses committed by security forces are 'official acts' from the perspective of discharging one's duty. The question is, how and who would decide that the 'official act' was performed in good faith without mala fide intention.

It said the armed forces were operating in a disturbed area where the militants' sympathizers whipped up false propaganda on an encounter killing to term it fake.

In such 'fake' encounters, if an innocent security person was harassed, it would deal a severe blow to the morale of the security forces.

This is at the best onesided if not totally absurd, if one juxtaposes it with the finding of the Supreme Court appointed Justice Santosh Hegde Commission which says that all the 13 cases it investigated were clear fake encounters.

The Home Ministry should not overlook the fact that it is the common people who often find themselves at the receiving end of both militants and security forces, specially in places where there are protracted armed conflicts.

By being overly protective about its armed forces, the State is conveniently ignoring the misery, loss and trauma bred by fake encounters.

In short, the Union Home Ministry's position is, guiltiness of security personnel should be established first before they are taken to task.

Protected by the shield of AFSPA, there is no such thing as prima facie evidence against security forces deployed in 'disturbed areas'.

Just look at how much time, efforts and energy were dedicated by the NGOs and victim families to get the 13 cases, out of more than 1500 such cases, established as genuine fake encounters.

The Home Ministry's response to the Supreme Court is suggestive of following the same lengthy, tedious and painful process in every suspected cases of fake encounter.

Given these ground realities, coupled with its own ambiguities, the Home Ministry's assurance for 'zero tolerance' is rather dubious.