By Patricia Mukhim
Over the past week we have had article and letters expressing different viewpoints on whether Garo Hills should be declared a ‘disturbed area.’ To get an idea of what a disturbed area is we will turn to Section 3 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (1958). The Act says, “If in relation to any State or Union Territory to which this Act extends, the Governor of the State, or the Administrator of the Union Territory, or the Central Government in either case, is of the opinion that the whole or any is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of Armed Forces in aid of civil power is necessary, the Governor of that State or the Administrator of that Union Territory or the Central Government as the case may be, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the whole or such part of such State or Union Territory to be a disturbed area.” Under the AFSPA, the authorities only need to be “of the opinion that whole or parts of the area are in a dangerous or disturbed condition such that the use of the Armed Forces in aid of civil powers is necessary.” There is no definition of what constitutes “dangerous or disturbed condition”.
The vagueness of this definition was challenged in Indrajit Barua versus State of Assam case (AIR 1983 Del 513). The court decided that the lack of precision to the definition of a disturbed area was not an issue because the government and people of India understand its meaning. However, since the declaration depends on the satisfaction of the Government official, it is not subject to judicial review. The Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, however, provides a clear definition. Under the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act of 1976, an area may be declared disturbed when “a State Government is satisfied that (i) there was, or (ii) there is, in any area within a State extensive disturbance of the public peace and tranquility, by reason of differences or disputes between members of different religions, racial, language, or regional groups or castes or communities, it may … declare such area to be a disturbed area.” The lack of precision in the definition of a disturbed area under the AFSPA demonstrates that the government is not interested in putting safeguards on its application of the AFSPA.
In the original version of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958, only the state governments had the power to declare an area as disturbed. This was consistent with Article 246 of the Constitution of India to be read with the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India which places “law and order” under the State’s list. The 1972 amendments to the AFSPA took away the power from the State government and its legislative Assembly and handed it over to an appointee of the Central Government. This is despite the fact that President can proclaim emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the Central government subsumes the powers of the State governments to declare certain parts or whole of a State or Union Territory under emergency without having to resort to the strictness required under the Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
The key author of the Indian Constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar, had commented, “On 26 January 1950 we will enter a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality but in social and economic life we will continue to have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote; one vote, one value. In our social and economic life we will by reason of our social and economic structure continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest or else those who suffer inequality will blow up the structure of democracy”. Ambedkar defines social democracy as a way of life that recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as integral parts of a whole because to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Political democracy cannot last unless it is based on social democracy.
When Dr Ambedkar made this prophetic statement India was not afflicted by the internal security challenges it is facing today. Ambedkar was referring to the caste and economic biases suffered by large sections of Indians, particularly the Dalits whose plight continues and whose social, economic and educational status is as pathetic as it was many decades ago. We now have Left Wing Extremism (LWE) popularly known as Maoism in Central, Western and parts of Eastern India. Jammu and Kashmir and North East India has been in the grip of insurgency/militancy (since the 1950s in NE and the 80’s in J&K). And now we have a convoluted form of violence and public disorder in Garo Hills which is its own definition and cannot be called an insurgent movement by any stretch of imagination.
What is happening in the Garo Hills is in many ways symptomatic of the breakdown of social democracy and subversion of the political principle of one man, one vote and one vote, one value. While this principle may apply to the voters, the elected representative immediately becomes more equal than the voters and is placed in a position of privilege to subvert the system and to appropriate political resources for personal aggrandizement. Seeing this easy mode of getting rich without any questions being asked a section of disgruntled elements, who believe that contesting elections too demanding prefer to jump the process. They use the gun as an instrument of intimidation and extracting compliance from selected targets. The targets obviously are the moneyed and well-heeled but the ordinary citizen becomes the “collateral damage.”
Much has been written about the police force and its infiltration by elements sympathetic to the cause of public disorder. Since the police are recruited from the same soil on which the militant/rebel also takes birth, we cannot expect a morally sanitised police force, more so since the leader of a particular militant outfit is himself an ex-cop. In his proposal for police reforms, former Cabinet Secretary K Padmanabhiah had observed, “Internal security is an important element of national security. It would be prudent for the policy makers to realise that the present-day challenges to internal security…. are of such a nature that to meet them squarely, meaningfully and effectively, the society and the country need a highly motivated, professionally skilled, infrastructurally self- sufficient and sophisticatedly trained police force.”
These are nice sounding words to define an ideal police force but do we have such a police force in Meghalaya? A highly motivated cop is supported by other key elements such as (a) job satisfaction (b) unconditional support from higher ups while in an operation (c) state of the art weapons and training (d) a good pay packet that is incentivized by exceptional performance and delivery (e) no insecurity about meeting family’s basic needs (f) clinical and psychological counseling on return from an operation; a sort of general debriefing and an opportunity to detect what mental inequilibrium the combatant returns with. His deepest fears need to be addressed. After all he is only a human being with the same needs and insecurities as any other person. It is not easy to operate in a conflict zone and enter uncharted territory over which militants have a clear grasp. It is easy to sit from a distance and pass judgment on the police for being turncoats, but believe me with the kind of anti-police stance that so-called civil society organizations in Meghalaya are propounding we need not wonder why Garo Hill is what it is today. We cannot expect the police doing duty in a conflict zone to be treading on egg shells. Period. Of course we don’t want trigger happy cops but that split second encounter with a better armed enemy leaves the cop with little option. He has to kill or be killed by a militant’s bullet.
The problem with Meghalaya Police is not at the middle or lower rung but at the top. It is a very top heavy institution. We need to cut the slack and equip the ground force better. You don’t need too many policemen doing administrative work. Police have to deliver on the ground. That’s what they are evaluated for.
As for Garo Hills being disturbed or not, the performance of the combined SWAT and COBRA teams in the next few weeks and months without political interference and administrative bottlenecks (to give the police what they need while on their operations) and a return of public order should help the Centre decide the next course of action.