General Jaswal is right, religious guidelines are not followed by all the members of the religion. They follow them more in breach than in observance. That does not imply - and we agree with the General - we throw the book out or 'remove the chap'. At first, as I mentioned in my last write-up, there is no scope of drawing a parallel between the two incompatibles. Even in doing that the conclusions you draw are erroneously misleading and scandalous. Religion is for disciplining our lives and to enrich us in human resourcefulness. Leave aside accountability factor in the Hereafter, if in violation of a religious guideline a wrongdoer's action does not disturb society and his arrogance in making breaches in the divine law remains confined to his 'privacy', that may not disturb anyone in a secular set up. That is a different case. But when it does disturb society and tells upon its general health, law of the land will strike. For instance abstention from drinking is forbidden in all religions. Might be no problem if 'within limits' but once headiness of the wine intoxicates one to strangulate an innocent or outrage the modesty of a woman, common sense demands retributive justice has not and should not be delayed to God. Pious book will remain there for guiding we mortals for ever but the criminal 'chap' will be quarantined to save humanity. Will be 'removed' and put behind the bars, his 'service' to 'nation' notwithstanding. This is how a breaker of religious injunctions is and has to be dealt with. Unlike this, AFSPA is a document of impunity that triggers a chain reaction of massive human rights violation. It unchains a cop from a body of legal restrictions and "guides" him to evolve into a marauder. Who, like a lawless insurgent carries his own "institution" of prosecution, justice delivery system and execution on his sleeves. Spares one he wishes to, eliminates he doesn't.

'Take the guilty to task, but don't touch the pious document' stresses and advises General. Good, but there is no religiosity in the AFSPA. Religion calls for severe punishment to an offender of a heinous crime. Does AFSPA puts a perpetrator of a crime as heinous as murder, rape, fake encounter and custodial killings. Surely it doesn't. Fear of accountability before courts and punishment sends the restraining strong message. A curative therapy for the diseased mentality. Here, in contrary, holy scripture of AFSPA cradles an offender in its loving arms. Shields him from any legal action. And that is the reason why it has not to be 'touched'.

Well, without 'touching' the 'pious document', let us turn our gaze at where the officer guides us to. The guilty. And that is where our debate narrows down. 'Find someone guilty, take him to task', says General. That is exactly what people of Kashmir, and human rights groups want. How many you identified and punished. The human rights groups have time and again pointed to violations committed by armed forces but they say hardly anyone has been punished. Meenakshi Ganguly, senior South Asia researcher at the Human Rights Watch (the international rights watchdog) says that Army's inquiries are nothing but a ruse to obstructv prosecution: 'We have seen too many army inquiries, supposed suspensions and false promises of punishment whenever soldiers are implicated in the killing of civilians. But when dust settles, the army obstructs prosecution under the Special Powers Act, and fails to deliver justice'.

It is common knowledge when cases relating to violation of human rights are put up before the civil courts, the army pleads right to trial in the Court Martial. But as cases like Pathribal, Jalil Andrabi, Ganderbal, Bomai indicate these 'trials' are used, in Ganguly's words, 'to settle the dust' and hoodwink public opinion. Some of the accused have continued to serve in the army and received promotions.

Law does not discriminate between a criminal in Khakhi and the one in olive green. Here it does. In Ganderbal case, for example, while charges were filed against the police officers involved in abduction and murder of five innocent civilians labelled as militants, the army officers though accomplice in the same crime police were implicated in were not handed over to prosecution.

The height of  insensitivity to human rights abuses in Kashmir, notwithstanding the 'zero tolerance' commitments, doled out religiously by Delhi, especially Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, is that armed forces operate in Kashmir to 'aid civil administration', state government has been disempowered to hold them accountable. Under Section 7 of AFSPA sanction for prosecution has to be sought from the Government of India and it has not been given in any case. The Times of India in its special report 'Under Siege' (13 June, 2010) reveals that 'During 2007-2009, there were 23 such requests but the ministry of defense did not permit any of them to go ahead'. ToI also reported that 'over 1500 cases of human rights violations had been filed against the army in the last two decades in Kashmir. The army takes recourse to the iron-fisted AFSPA to refuse to hand the accused to civilian authorities. It says it has its own 'internal mechanism' to deal with 'aberrations' under the Army Act, 1950'.

Why, after all, the army and government of Delhi is callously adamant in not allowing the guilty cops for prosecution in the civilian courts? The judges who sit there to pronounce judgements are not of' secessionist' ideology, are not appointed from the offices of Geelanees and Sallahudeens. They are  men of integrity, Delhi reposes trust on and are appointed by Supreme Court of India. When civilian authority in Kashmir puts its faith in them and their judgement why don't army and rulers in Delhi do the same. The supremacy of law and independence of judiciary must be above everything else – AFSPA included.

The argument that taking this shield off will erode military 'morale' of the troops makes no sense whatsoever. Rather the mindset exposes the design behind the enactment of this 'pious' law: Repression of people to break their will and force them into submission.

Making a sweeping generalisation and malign army as an institution is unfair and unjustifiable. A crime perpetrated by a few troops cannot smudge the repetition of an entire brigade they belong to, and that is exactly what we hold too. But when 'aberrations' pile up into a frigid heap of immunity and are allowed to spike with "military discipline" and army is seen obsessed in preempting any move aimed to bring guilty to justice, questions would be raised on the role of the Army in the light of ground realities. And it is approval of allowance.

It will be better if for preserving its own image of a 'disciplined force' the army helps state government ensure supremacy of law and justice. Till Generals' 'holy' book holds inviolability, Army as institution will continue to dent its credibility.

Tail Piece: - Heard ever a 'beautiful' land of 'angels' being converted into 'worlds' highest fortified zone with 5 lakh troops, 70,000 paramilitary forces and strong one lakh police force (Times of India 13 June) put on the 'morale' boaster of AFSPA. Lok Sabha Speaker Mira Kumar perhaps is ignorant of this. By the way are 'angels' governed by the man-made laws!

(The author can be reached at zainagiree@yahoo.co.in)

Lastupdate on : Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:00:00 IST