No Respite From AFSPA ! No Respite for Irom Sharmila!All Hawks Jump to hunt Omar as he Dared to make some parts of Jammu AFPSA Free!

Coal Ministry to display list of 54 coal blocks for allocation on ministry website within 15 days

Finance Ministry nod likely for capital infusion in PSU banks by mid Novemeber

'Save Sharmila Solidarity Campaign' reaches Imphal after its national tour

The West Bengal government on Thursday gave a clean chit to B C Roy Children's Hospital after 12 infants died since Tuesday, holding there was no medical negligence or any lapse on the part of hospital authorities.Government Hospitals should not be a Place for Health Care!So that the Health Care Mafia shoul Bloom as the Brahaminical Hegemony favours Private Investment!

India to attract $80 billion FDI over 12-24 months, says a Morgan Stanley survey

Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams. Chapter 701

Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/

http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/

palashbiswaslive: AFPSA Relaxation Plan seems to be ABORTED ...
palashbiswaslive.blogspot.com/.../afpsa-relaxation-plan-seems-to-be...
11 Sep 2010 – AFPSA Relaxation Plan seems to be ABORTED as it had been the Focus of Discussion for a while and the People of Entire Himalayas ...

*
You shared this
AFPSA beomes a contentious political issue | Politics
www.indiatalkies.com/.../afpsa-beomes-contentious-political-issue.ht...
13 Sep 2010 – New Delhi, Sep 13 - The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) has become a political hot potato in the violence-hit Kashmir Valley, with ...

'Save Sharmila Solidarity Campaign' reaches Imphal after its national tour

PTI
SHARE · PRINT · T+

THE HINDUSocial activist Medha Patekar raises slogans as the 'Save Sharmila Solidarity Campaign' got started from Srinagar on Oct. 16, 2011. The 4,500-km 'yatra' covering 11 States demands revocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Photo: Nissar Ahmad.

NEWS

AFSPA issue under purview of Home Ministry: Army Chief From Srinagar to Imphal, in support of Sharmila Signature campaign

TOPICS

justice and rights civil rights
politics parties and movements

After soliciting support from the people of 11 States in their drive against the 'draconian' Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), the 'Save Sharmila Solidarity Campaign' on Thursday completed its nation-wide tour as it reached Imphal valley.

Flagged off by Medha Patkar and Magsaysay award winner Sandeep Pandey on October 16 from Srinagar, the 4,500 km long 'Jan Karvan' is led by 21 members of the National Alliance for People's Movement (NAPM) and backed by a number of civil society groups from across the country.

The 4,500 km tour covered cities like Jammu, Ludhiana, New Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Varanasi, Ranchi, Patna, Kolkata and Guwahati, with the final destination being Imphal.

"We were successful in spreading the universal message of love and peace. We made people aware against the unconstitutional and inhumane AFSPA which has killed many innocents. Only by repealing the Act, Irom Sharmila can get justice," said a spokesman of the campaign.

During their march, public meetings, distribution of pamphlets, candle light vigils, street plays and school and college meetings were held in association with local human rights organisations.

On December 10, which is celebrated as International Human Rights Day, volunteers of the solidarity campaign will fast at New Delhi's Rajghat.

Signatures collected from different parts of the country would be put on display and a delegation will meet President Pratibha Patil to seek her intervention in stopping alleged army atrocities under the AFSPA.

The 'Save Sharmila' campaign, which received fresh attention ever since Anna Hazare sat on a fast twice earlier this year, has made many social activists like Medha Patkar, Aruna Roy, Binayak Sen, writer Arundhati Roy and a host of intellectuals, litterateurs, artistes come out in support.

By fasting for the last 11 years, 'Iron Lady' Irom Sharmila's non-violent resistance has become a nucleus for collective protest against the AFSPA.

Ms. Sharmila, who is now forcibly nose-fed at a government hospital in Imphal, began her fast in November 2000 after Assam Rifles personnel killed ten innocent civilians at Malom area near Imphal airport in an alleged encounter with the militants.

Keywords: Manipur, Irom Sharmila, Indefinite fast, AFSPA, National Yatra, Civil rights

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article2573676.ece

No Respite From AFSPA ! No Respite for Irom Sharmila!All Hawks Jump to hunt Omar as he Dared to make some parts of Jammu AFPSA Free!

The controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act - that gives sweeping powers to the army and central police forces - kicks in only after an area is declared as disturbed under this year. The state police get similar powers to search premises, destroy suspected hideouts and shoot-to-kill in areas notified as disturbed under the Disturbed Areas Act.

Army chief Gen VK Singh on Thursday refused to get into the debate over lifting the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, saying the law was within the purview of the ministry of home affairs. "They are debating this and we have given our inputs. I would not like to say anything more," he told reporters on the sidelines of Infantry Day celebrations.

In September 2010, the CCS headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had vetted the home ministry proposal to "request" the Omar Abdullah government to "immediately" convene a meeting of the Unified Command in the state "to review the notification of areas as disturbed areas".

Since then, Chidambaram had taken up implementation of this CCS decision with Omar Abdullah on several occasions including the October 11 meeting.

Officials in the security establishment insist that too much was being made of the army's reservations, particularly since the army did not have any significant operational presence in areas which are proposed for de-notification.

For instance, eight of the nine major encounters in Srinagar were handled by the police and CRPF and technical assistance from the army was sought in just one case.

State government sources indicated the final order withdrawing the notification of disturbed areas, however, may have to be issued by the central government rather than the state.
"Since the original order was issued by the Centre when the state was under Governor's Rule, there is a view that the state may not be able to issue the notification independently," an official in J&K government said.

Chorus of voices join 'save-Sharmila' campaign

TNN | Oct 27, 2011, 12.46PM IST

GUWAHATI: Balwant Singh Yadav, a retired soldier from Himachal Pradesh, who had served in the Northeast during the 1962 Chinese aggression, wants the controversial Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) to be scrapped and Irom Sharmila freed.
"Yeh (AFSPA) kanun ka koi jarurat nahin. Agar politicians thik se nagarik ka samasya samadhan karte hain, main to kahta hun ki army ka bhi jarurat nehin hoga. Aaj Sharmila AFSPA ke birudh jo lambi ladai kar rahe hain, hum saab unke saath hain," said Yadav, who is one of the participants in the nationwide Save Sharmila Solidarity Campaign (SSSC).
Yadav, who is the coordinator of the Gandhi Global Family in Shimla, even went to the extent of comparing Sharmila with Rani Laxmi Bai for her 11-year fast against the AFSPA. He said that SSSC has been able to waken the country to the "grit and determination" of Sharmila.
Like Yadav, many social activists from different states and organizations joined the SSSC which started in Srinagar this month. The SSSC, an umbrella of over 70 organizations, including theNational Alliance of People's Movement, Khudai Khidmatgar, Asha Parivar, Gandhi Global Family and Jagriti Mahila Samiti, has already covered 10 states. On Wednesday, the SSSC left for Imphal.
"We are going to Imphal to meet Sharmila. J&K and Manipur are the two states affected by AFSPA. The involvement of people in the campaign from states where there is no AFSPA tells very clearly that we are united for Sharmila's cause," said Faisal Khan of SSSC.
Without mentioning any name, Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement also came in for criticism by SSSC members. "I do not want to take any names, but want to say that those who for the past few months have been claiming their movement is satyagrah should learn from Sharmila. She never used any harsh words against anyone and continued tenaciously with her fast. We are going to meet Sharmila to learn from her and get inspired by her satyagrah," said Khan.
Bihar convenor of Bandi Adhikar Andolan, Santosh Upadhay, said Sharlima has been deprived of the basic rights of a prisoner since she is not allowed any visitors. "Many people who wanted to meet Sharmila were denied permission. This is a clear violation of a prisoner's right to talk and meet people. This is not democracy," said Upadhay.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/Chorus-of-voices-join-save-Sharmila-campaign/articleshow/10506953.cms

Coal Ministry to display list of 54 coal blocks for allocation on ministry website within 15 days
The Coal Ministry will display within 15 days the list of 54 coal blocks to be allocated through competitive bidding and government nomination.

"In another 15 days, we will come out with the list of 54 coal blocks to be given away through competitive bidding and government dispensation route," a Coal Ministry official said, adding that the list of blocks will be displayed on the ministry's website.

These 54 blocks will be hopefully allocated this year, he further said.

Earlier the ministry had indicated that certain blocks out of 54 acreages that were tipped to be put up for competitive bidding will be awarded on a nomination basis.

The government had not identified the reserves to be given either through nomination or competitive bidding. "The exercise for identifying the blocks is under way," the official said.

Last month, the ministry had said it would allocate five blocks to NTPC through the dispensation route to help the state-run power generating company meet requirement of its four thermal projects.

Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal had said in May that the proposed competitive bidding round for coal blocks in the country would be held soon. The proposal for auctioning the blocks through competitive bidding was first mooted for the first time over two years ago.

India to attract $80 billion FDI over 12-24 months, says a Morgan Stanley survey
NEW DELHI: Over the next 12-24 months India could attract a massive $80 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI), according to a research report byMorgan Stanley. India received $48-billion FDI in the last two years. "The findings show that global companies see real opportunity in India and that their investment appetite is increasing, notwithstanding continuing negative perceptions around infrastructure bottlenecks," said Ridham Desai, head of India Research at Morgan Stanley.

The startling number came out of a survey of 176 of the firm's internationally-based research analyst teams that cover 1,766 global companies. These teams determined the likely India investment opportunity recognised by the companies they covered. The survey did not involve direct interaction with the companies.

"Conducting a survey among large companies worldwide was not feasible due to very high costs and time taken," the detailed note says explaining the survey.

The 20% of the companies covered in the survey have already invested nearly $80 billion into India, almost 53% of the total FDI into the country.

"As per our global analysts, 59 new companies are likely to invest in India while 67 of the currently invested global companies are unlikely to make further investments," the report says.

However, according to the survey, despite the intentions to pump in such large amounts India is still not a high priority destination
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/india-to-attract-80-billion-fdi-over-12-24-months-says-a-morgan-stanley-survey/articleshow/10482375.cms

News

27 Oct 2011, 23:13
Michael Schumacher keen to meet Sachin Tendulkar at Indian Grand Prix
Legendary Formula One driver Michael Schumacher is looking forward to his second meeting with India's cricketing legend Sachin Tendulkar, a die-hard fan of motorsports.
27 Oct 2011, 22:57
F1 drivers pleased with Buddh International Circuit track for Indian GP
Formula One drivers say they are pleased with the track for the inaugural Indian Grand Prix after having their first view of the Buddh International Circuit on Thursday.

News By Industry

Economy

Politics/Nation

SMB

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/articlelist/1715249553.cms

Purely in terms of electoral representation, the government does find the elusive starting point for talks, the crucial question that arises is who does the government talk to and also what does it talk about?
Purely in terms of electoral representation, the government should be talking to mainstreampolitical parties. But, they have been totally marginalised in today's context.
Neither is any National Conference (NC) legislator visible in its stronghold of Srinagar nor, is any People's Democratic Party (PDP) one visible in South Kashmir. Except for making noises on autonomy/self rule, AFPSA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) etc, the mainstream parties have made no contribution towards diffusing the current situation.
If anything, the National Conference is trying to ensure that the People's Democratic Party (PDP) does not surge ahead in popularity, while the People's Democratic Party is taking satisfaction in the fact that the National Conference's credibility has been badly damaged. Both fail to realize how irrelevant they are if they continue with their ostrich-like approach. It is unlikely that they will be able to recover lost ground in a hurry.
The only person at the center-stage of political discourse and calling the shots is S A S Geelani. His protest calendar is being regularly followed in the valley. As a result, life in the valley is being conducted on his whims and fancies.
However, his actual hold on the young protestors is debatable. With even the Jamaat coming out in favour of not letting education suffer, Geelani, despite his rhetoric, is under pressure to ensure that normalcy returns to the valley. Yet, tech savvy protestors smell blood and have demonstrated their rejection to his calls for peaceful protests. The jury is also out whether Masarat Alam is really in charge.
In an interview to Indian Express (Aug. 28, 2010), Masarat Alam said this was a resistance movement; a people's movement and it had gone beyond the organisational setup of any group.
Geelani, of course, has laid out five conditions for India to begin talks. These are
(i) Acceptance of Kashmir as an international dispute.
(ii) Announce and begin the process of complete demilitarisation to be monitored by some credible agency like the UN and revocation of all oppressive laws like the AFSPA.
(iii) Prime Minister must commit publicly and ensure practically that no killing and arrest takes place.
(iv) Immediate and unconditional release of Kashmiri youth and political prisoners, and withdrawal of cases pending for past 20 years.
(v) Process of punishing perpetrators of state violence has to begin with the conviction of troops responsible for the recent killing of 65 people.
This, by any stretch of imagination, is a tall ask. Pundits have been debating whether this is flexibility being shown by Geelani, finding a honourable exit for both the separatists and the government, or is it a hardening of his stance.
It has been stressed that unlike in the past, he did not seek the involvement of Pakistan or that India should accept the right to self-determination as a condition for beginning talks. Whatever the verdict, it is unlikely that the government can accept the conditions in toto.
The moderate separatist leadership led by the likes of Omar Farooq and Yasin Malik have only a slightly better standing than the mainstream parties. They have been forced to follow and support the protest schedule of Geelani instead of devising their own. Both are desperately trying to claw their way back into the limelight. In the process they have started pandering to the more violent separatists.
Mirwaiz, of course, has laid out his own conditions for talks:
(i) Withdrawal of troops
(ii) Removal of AFSPA
(iii) Release of prisoners
(iv) End of ongoing killings in Kashmir and to allow peaceful protests
(v) Triangular (now trilateral) dialogue between Pakistan, India and the true representatives of the Kashmiri people.
These, too, are a tall ask and it is unlikely that the government can accept them.
Then, there are the representatives of the Pandits, of Jammu, of Ladakh and so on.
Presuming that the government does find the right people to talk to, what will it talk about? There are, of course, immediate issues like the future of AFSPA, removal of security forces from civilian areas. But beyond that?
Among the separatists, the Mirwaiz-led Hurriyat wants freedom; Geelani's Hurriyat wants to accede to Pakistan. Among the mainstream parties, the People's Democratic Party wants self-rule and the National Conference, autonomy.
The minorities, like the Kashmiri Pandits, the Hindus and Muslims of Jammu, the Ladakhis, the Gujjars and the Shias want none of the above. What is the common minimum among them?
Clearly, while the options themselves are immensely complicated, even the process of finding a starting point, deciding who to talk to and then what to talk about will be equally complicated.
But a beginning has to be made. The stakes are clearly very high. India and Indians (this includes the Kashmirs of all hues) have paid a huge price in Kashmir, in terms of human lives, in terms of funds, in terms of international opprobrium.
Yet, the anti-India sentiments are at an all time high in the valley. The question to be asked is not whether more is required, but whether the right measures, the right policy has been adopted?
Unfortunately and regrettably, a price will still have to be paid for peace to come to the troubled state. Statesmanship dictates that the price should be as minimal as possible and the reward must be a long-term, lasting solution.
A solution that gives the Kashmiris as much of a stake in India as residents of any other states has and gives India security and peace.
Source : http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-41029.html

Authors An Indian

Blog Stats

19,915 hits

Wikio

News for irom sharmila

India Today

Chorus of voices join 'save-Sharmila' campaign

Times of India - 11 hours ago

... Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) to be scrapped and Irom Sharmila freed. ... Aaj Sharmila AFSPA ke birudh jo lambi ladai kar rahe hain, hum saab unke ...

18 related articles

NAPM hand for Irom Sharmila

Times of India - 7 related articles

India wakes up to Irom Sharmila

Times of India - 13 related articles

Manipur Freedom | Support Irom Sharmila!... Repeal AFSPA!...

manipurfreedom.org/
On 2 November 2010, Ms. Irom Sharmila Chanu, a Manipuri poet, will complete ten years of hunger strike demanding the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special ...
India wakes up to Irom Sharmila - The Times of India

timesofindia.indiatimes.com › Sunday TOI
4 days ago – The voice of Manipur's 'Mother Courage' is finally finding some resonance. As she fasts, a rally in her support that began from Srinagar will ...
Irom Sharmila must reach out to people like Anna Hazare, says G.K. ...

indiatoday.intoday.in/story/irom-sharmila...to.../149544.html
30 Aug 2011 – Irom Sharmila, fasting for the last 11 years for the repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), must reach out to people across the ...
The Hindu : News / National : Irom Sharmila urges Anna to visit ...

www.thehindu.com › News › National
28 Aug 2011 – Irom Sharmila, the "iron lady of Manipur," has invited anti-corruption ...Said Ms. Sharmila: "I would like you to be convinced of the reality of my ...
Irom And The Iron In India's Soul

www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=Ne051209irom_and...
IROM SHARMILA'S STORY SHOULD BE PART OF UNIVERSAL FOLKLORE. IN THE TENTH YEAR OF HER EPIC FAST, SHOMA CHAUDHURY TELLS YOU ...
Irom Sharmila is fighting another fight — for her right to love - Indian ...

www.indianexpress.com/news/irom-sharmila-is...fight.../842139/
6 Sep 2011 – Irom Sharmila is fighting another fight — for her right to love - It is not the usual story about Manipuri activist Irom Sharmila.

Searches related to irom sharmila

irom sharmila poems

irom sharmila tehelka

In a bid to ease the tension caused by his uncle Mustafa Kamal accusing the army of plotting the two grenade attacks in Srinagar, Omar reached out by praising the Army's role in containinig militancy. But the Army, still miffed over the allegations and the rollback of AFSPA which it doesn't want, has passed the buck on to the Union Home ministry.

Army chief General VK Singh says, "It is in the purview of the Home ministry and they know what our input is." ''

And in the midst of this controversy generated over the Army Act, Omar Abdullah finds himself alone, the Home ministry from which he might have got the signal to go ahead with AFSPA roll back has surprisingly chosen to remain silent so far.

And after Omar Abdullah responded to Saifuddin Soz's attack, Soz spoke to IBN18 Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep Sardesai, accusing the Jammu and Kashmir chief minister of playing to the gallery.

"It is his style, my brother, on next occassion he will do the same thing, it is not my case that I will correct him for future. He does these kind of things. In a row he has done it. But it is a very great blunder because he is the chairman of the Unified Command and that unified command member read this in the paper," he said.

Amid talk of withdrawal of AFSPA from some areas of Jammu and Kashmir, Army Chief General V K Singh said his force has given its inputs on the issue, but refused to specify those saying the matter was under the purview of the Home Ministry.

"This (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) is within the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. They are debating this and we have given our inputs. I would not like to say anything more," he told reporters on the sidelines of Infantry Day celebrations here.

Asked about NC leader Mustafa Kamal's remarks that the October 25 grenade blasts in Srinagar were orchestrated by the Army, Singh said, "Whosoever has given that comment, I think that does not deserve the courtesy of any remark from me".

Army has been advocating for continuing the Act on the grounds that it needed to deal with terrorism in the state.

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had said that the withdrawal of the Act from some districts of the state such as Srinagar, Badgam, Samba and Jammu was in no way an effort to undermine the role of the Army.

The high-level meeting, attended by home secretary R K Singh and other senior officials, took stock of the law and order situation in the state, particularly in the Valley where suspected militants exploded several grenades in the last two days.

Sources said the home secretary briefed the meeting about his recent visit to Jammu and Kashmir as part of the team of Secretaries who met chief minister Omar Abdullah and top civil and security officials.

The meeting comes in the midst of a raging debate over a move to withdraw the Disturbed Areas Act, which will enable revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act in some areas of the state.

PDP feels Omar jumped gun on AFSPA

Chief minister Omar Abdullah's recent announcement on limited withdrawal of the Disturbed Areas Act from Jammu and Kashmir has led to "utter confusion" and its price is being paid by ordinary civilians, PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti on Thursday alleged.

She said things were made worse by the "usual lack of cohesion" between various components of the government, and "it seems that a debate is taking place only after the announcement was made".

"It appears that the chief minister had not done his home work before he rushed to make an announcement about the proposed withdrawal of AFSPA," she said. Mufti said any move towards revocation of AFSPA should in normal course have brought relief to the people but instead the violence had "suddenly spurted".

"It seems in place of providing relief to people and introducing an element of relaxation the government has succeeded only in instilling fear in people," she alleged.

Mufti also expressed sympathy with the victims of the recent terror attacks in the state and described them as "outright condemnable".

Suspected militants yesterday exploded a grenade in a crowded market place in Anantnag injuring five civilians in the fifth attack in two days.

Better coordination with NC needed: Congress

With its state unit complaining of lack of consultations by Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah over AFSPA, Congress said there is a need for "better coordination" between the two ruling coalition partners but refrained from giving any view on the measure.

"If PCC president has said something, there must be reason behind it. We also feel that there is need for better coordination between the two coalition partners (National Conference and Congress) there," AICC general secretary incharge for the state Mohan Prakash told reporters here.

The AICC leader, however, refrained from voicing Congress' opinion on the merits of revoking the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from the state saying it is for security agencies concerned and the Home Ministry to take a view.

"There is a unified command (in the state). The home ministry and various others agencies concerned with it will take a decision keeping in mind the ground realities and the party will go by that," Prakash said to repeated questions on the party's stand on the matter.

The Congress reaction came after PCC chief Saif-ud-Din Soz questioned the move to revoke AFSPA from some areas of Jammu and Kashmir and said all stakeholders including the army should have been consulted, inviting a terse response from Omar, who said he is well aware of his responsibilities.

A section in the Congress feels that the coordination committee in the state headed by Soz with four other members including two ministers from the National Conference has not been meeting frequently to discuss key issues as was envisaged.

Sources also said that at the time of the formation of the coalition government, it was proposed to have an annual review of its performance but that did not take place during the last three years, hinting that it could now be "activated".

"Lack of coordination will affect the performance of the government," a senior party leader said speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Soz upset at 'unilateral' move on AFSPA

SHUJAAT BUKHARI
SHARE · COMMENT · PRINT · T+
I know my duties; Chidambaram was in the loop, Omar tells PCC chief
After the Army raised the pitch over revoking the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, it is the J&K Congress' turn to accuse Chief Minister Omar Abdullah of not taking his party into confidence before making the announcement on limited withdrawal of the AFSPA.
The Chief Minister reacted saying Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram was in the loop, while the opposition People's Democratic Party blamed the government for the confusion and the CPI(M) said such issues of public importance should not be messed up in avoidable political skirmishes.
The war of words between the main coalition partners in the government heightened on Thursday after Pradesh Congress Committee chief Saifuddin Soz said, "It is a little dangerous to take such a decision without consultation." Speaking to The Hindu here, he said: "I believe AFSPA and the Disturbed Areas Act have to go, but at a proper time." It was true that militancy had declined but not completely.
Professor Soz said Mr. Abdullah was not the only player in the process of AFSPA withdrawal. "There are many actors who are as much important as is Omar. The Home Minister, the Defence Minister, the Unified Headquarters and the Congress as the main coalition party are important actors." "He [Omar] would not lose anything if he consulted me also. [But] I am not hurt and as long as the Home Minister, the Defence Minister and others agree, I have no problem."
Professor Soz said the issue was never discussed in the Cabinet or on the coalition government's co-ordination committee, which he heads. "On this Omar has no footing, he cannot take a unilateral decision."
The PCC chief said, "The decision is wrong if the Defence Minister is not consulted."
Reacting, Mr Abdullah said: "The issue has been discussed at the Unified Command meeting. I know my duties as Chief Minister. If Soz sahib wants to discuss the issue on the coordination committee, he as its head should convene a meeting. I am not the member of the CC," the Chief Minister told journalists on the sidelines of a function at Ganderbal.
"Incompetent handling"
Regretting that a "superficial and incompetent" handling of the issue led to an "atmosphere of confrontation," PDP president Mehbooba Mufti said it appeared the Chief Minister had not done his homework before he rushed to make the announcement.
CPI(M) State secretary M. Y. Tarigami said his party was always unequivocal in demanding the removal of the draconian laws [the AFSPA and the Disturbed Areas Act]. In a statement, he said: "Since there is a marked improvement in the overall security situation in the State, time has come to revoke this law [AFSPA] at least from certain areas in the first instance."
Keywords: Armed Forces Act, AFSPA withdrawal
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article2574488.ece

AFSPA withdrawal not in Friday's cabinet agenda

Kashmir Dispatch - ‎4 hours ago‎

Senior Congress leader and Minister for PHE Taj Mohi-ud-Din Thursday said that revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) wasn't in the agenda in tomorrow's cabinet meeting. Taj said, "It isn't in the agenda, but Chief Minister has powers to ...

CCS meets

IBNLive.com - ‎1 hour ago‎

There was no official word whether the issue of AFSPA in Kashmir came up for discussion. There are moves to withdraw AFSPA from some districts of the state such as Srinagar, Badgam, Samba and Jammu. While Jammu and Kashmir government has favoured ...

'Army has given its inputs on AFSPA'

The Statesman - ‎7 hours ago‎

PTI NEW DELHI, 27 OCT: Amid talk of withdrawal of AFSPA from some areas of Jammu and Kashmir, Army Chief General VK Singh today said his force has given its inputs on the issue, but refused to specify those saying the matter was under the purview of ...

Silence On AFSPA PDP's Bid For Power: NC

Kashmir Observer - ‎Oct 26, 2011‎

Srinagar, Oct 26, KONS: The ruling National Conference on Wednesday attacked the PDP for its "silence" on revoking the AFSPA, saying that it was a blackmailing tactic to sneak back into power. In a stinging counter-offensive on the opposition party, ...

Given our inputs on AFSPA, decision Home Ministry's: Army

Indian Express - ‎7 hours ago‎

The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here.

J and K: Appointed panels not in favour of repealing AFSPA

Hindustan Times - ‎Oct 25, 2011‎

Omar Abdullah on Friday had announced that government is planning to repeal AFSPA and DAA from certain areas and time has come that J&K police takes charge of security of these areas.

AFSPA debate: 'Issue under MHA's purview'

Times Now.tv - ‎12 hours ago‎

In his response to the ongoing debate over the revocation of the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) from certain areas of Jammu and Kashmir, Army Chief General VK Singh on Thursday (October 26) said that the issue is under the purview of the ...

India Today

Another blast rocks Kashmir

Deccan Herald - ‎22 hours ago‎

Once the DAA is revoked from some areas, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) will automatically get revoked in the same areas.

NAPM hand for Irom Sharmila

Times of India - ‎Oct 25, 2011‎

The 21-member team led by Faisal Khan of NAPM is visiting 10 north and northeastern Indian states to make common people aware of the fallouts of the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) clamped in Manipur and Jammu & Kashmir. Backed by over two-dozen ...

Reuters Africa

Govt. will take balanced view on AFSPAwithdrawal in Kashmir: Pallam Raju

Newstrack India - ‎Oct 25, 2011‎

Kolkata, Oct 25 (ANI): Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju on Tuesday said the Central Government will take a balanced view on the need for withdrawing or not withdrawing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from specific areas of the ...

The Nation, Pakistan

Kashmir shuts down on Hurriyat call

TruthDive - ‎6 hours ago‎

The Hurriyat Conference (G) on Wednesday alleged that the armed forces operating in Jammu Kashmir could go to any extent to ensure that Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) remained intact in the state. "The implementation of AFSPA virtually means ...

'Divergent views on AFSPA sending wrong signal across border'

IBNLive.com - ‎Oct 23, 2011‎

PTI | 10:10 PM,Oct 23,2011 Jammu, Oct 23 (PTI) The "divergent views" of two key Union ministries over the controversial decision of revokingAFSPA in Jammu and Kashmir is sending a wrong message across the border, suspended BJP Legislative Party leader ...

SHRC joins chorus

GreaterKashmir.com (press release) - Arif Shafi Wani - ‎Oct 24, 2011‎

On completion of his three-year term as chairperson SHRC today, Justice Bashir-ud-Din released the Commission's first newsletter in which among other human rights issues he has comprehensively analyzed various facets of AFSPA in Jammu and Kashmir.

Soz says he is working as facilitator between center, separatists

Kashmir Dispatch - ‎Oct 26, 2011‎

On Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's recent overtures on revocation of controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from "certain areas" of the state, the PCC president said, "AFSPA will end only when militancy will end.

GreaterKashmir.com

Withdrawal of AFSPA not on our agenda: Army

Daily News & Analysis - ‎Oct 18, 2011‎

By Ishfaq-ul-Hassan | Place: Srinagar | Agency: DNA Puncturing Omar Abdullah's balloon of withdrawal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from peaceful areas of Jammu and Kashmir, the army has said this issue has not even come up for discussions ...

Centre declines sanction for prosecution in 26 cases under under AFSPA

Daily News & Analysis - ‎Oct 19, 2011‎

In the affidavit submitted by the joint secretary of MoD, there is not even one case where sanction under AFSPA is granted for prosecution", he said.

'No HR abuse since 2010': Army tells Guv

Kashmir Dispatch - ‎Oct 25, 2011‎

The Army is believed to have fired another salvo in a bid to keep intact the protection it gets under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). Well-placed sources in Srinagar and New Delhi told a local vernacular that the Army's top brass in the ...

Now Digvijay tries to wean away Ravi Shankar

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
SHARE · COMMENT · PRINT · T+
Be wary of Sangh-BJP, he tweets in message to Art of Living founder
Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh fired another salvo at the Bharatiya Janata Party-RSS combine on Thursday, saying the duo was using the campaign against corruption to divert people's attention from the involvement of Sangh activists over the last few years in terror acts in Malegaon, Modasa, Hyderabad and Ajmer Sharif and on the Samjhauta Express.
Having already used yoga teacher Baba Ramdev and social activist Anna Hazare as its fronts — and failed —, Mr. Singh said, the combine's next plan was to use Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar to fight its battle against the Congress.
Mr. Singh tweeted three messages in quick succession.
The first message read: "Plan A - Baba Ramdev. Crashed. Plan B- Anna.? Plan C - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar soon to start his campaign." The next one said: "Plan A, B and C are of Sangh/BJP to divert the minds of the people from their involvement in terror activities to corruption." And the third one was: "I hold Sri Ravi Shankarji in high esteem and have done a course in the Art of Living as CM MP in 2001. He should be wary of Sangh/ BJP."
These posts have drawn the BJP ire, and protests from Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. But Mr. Singh has been consistently taking on the anti-corruption crusaders for their Sangh links.
Earlier this month, the Congress general secretary even wrote to Mr. Hazare, enclosing a copy of a letter written by a senior RSS leader to the social activist, assuring him of his organisation's support to Team Anna's India Against Corruption. This after Mr. Hazare had publicly denied the link. Since then, Mr. Hazare has gone on a maun vrat.
Reacting to Mr. Singh's observations on him, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar declared his intention to continue his fight against corruption by creating a "moral and spiritual" wave.
"A law is necessary. However, a law alone cannot bring down corruption. A moral and spiritual wave has to be created," he said in a statement.
"Sri Sri has been speaking against corruption and will continue to fight against corruption. Even yesterday [Wednesday], he administered an oath to one lakh people to not give or take bribe," said the statement issued by his media unit.
Keywords: anti-corruption movement, India corruption, Congress-BJP spat, Digvijay Singh, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2574500.ece

Anna might not attend Saturday's core committee meeting, to go on with maun vrat

STAFF REPORTER
SHARE · COMMENT · PRINT · T+

APIn this August 15, 2011 file picture, social activist Anna Hazare sits in a meditative posture at Rajghat in New Delhi.
Nothwithstanding his fragile health condition, social activist Anna Hazare on Thursday said he would continue his maun vrat at his native village Ralegan Siddhi in Maharashtra for atma shanti
Anti corruption crusader Anna Hazare might not attend the crucial core committee meeting to be held in New Delhi on Saturday, sources close to him told The Hindu. In his latest blogpost, Mr. Hazare has said that he has decided to go on with his maun vrat (vow of silence) owing to his poor health.
The core committee of India Against Corruption (IAC) is meeting for the first time after Team Anna has faced several setbacks. The recent developments in Team Anna — the physical attack on lawyer Prashant Bhushan over his remarks on a plebiscite in Kashmir, allegations of misconduct by overcharging travel bills on former IPS officer Kiran Bedi, the resignation of team members Rajendra Singh and P.V. Rajagopal over the increasing political nature of the movement and Swami Agnivesh's remarks on the non-transparency of IAC's funds — make this meeting crucial for the movement.
Sources close to Mr. Hazare in Ralegan Siddhi stated that he will be sending a letter addressed to all the core committee members, giving them directions for the meeting.
In his latest blogpost, Mr. Hazare has said , "My health still doesn't permit me to give up my maun vrat….It helps me heal my body from within and outside.
"Verbal Communication with people is an exertion for me leaving me very weak.
"Hence keeping my physical condition in mind, I have taken the decision to go on with maun vrat." He has said that there is still some swelling on his feet and has trouble with his knee. He has been on maun vrat since October 16.
Keywords: Anna Hazare fast, Hazare maun vrat, vow of silence, Team Anna, Lokpal bill, anti-corruption crusader
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2573422.ece

00 Days Countdown - Toward Completion of a Decade's Hunger Strike

Posted Fri, 2010-07-23 12:18 by admin

On 2 November 2010, Ms. Irom Sharmila Chanu, a Manipuri poet, will complete ten years of hunger strike demanding the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA). An extraordinary struggle of an extraordinary woman! Withstanding the test of time, the struggle exemplifies the triumph of human spirit over the unbridled power of the mighty.....

Inviting students to show their solidarity with activist Irom Sharmila through their Liberative poetic sense

Posted Thu, 2009-11-12 11:55 by admin

An update on solidarity action for Irom Sharmila.

A planning meeting was held on 14th October 2009 at SICHREM on Call for action for Manipur

The following programmes were chalked out:
- Invitation to students to show their solidarity with Irom Sharmila through their poetry
- Selected 25 poems will be printed out as a booklet.
- Screening of documentaries on human rights violations in Manipur between 2nd & 5th November 2009. So fare SCM has confirmed with the venue for 2nd & 3rd Nov 2009.

Independent Citizens Fact Finding Mission to Manipur

Posted Sat, 2009-11-07 11:48 by admin

Imphal,

7th November, '09

PRESS RELEASE

Sharmila's Public Message on 6th November 2009

Posted Sat, 2009-11-07 11:42 by admin

Date 6th November 2009

JN Hospital, Imphal

Dr. Deepti Priya Mehrotra's speech on Nov 1st 2009

Posted Fri, 2009-11-06 12:03 by admin

Two weeks after the release of her sixth book Burning Bright: Irom Sharmila and the Struggle for Peace in Manipur, Dr. Deepti Priya Mehrotra a political scientist, journalist and activist passionately recounted her days with the living legend.

Dr. Merhotra spoke about the private and public struggle of Irom Sharmila at the School of Social Sciences – 1, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on the 26th of September, 2009. The special lecture was organised by Manipur Research Forum.

Irom Sharmila is a "sister and daughter of the world", a peace loving activist and a friend who is now close to her heart. Dr. Mehrotra was one of the many who became a friend of Irom Sharmila while she brought her struggle to Delhi.

She met Sharmila at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi during the winter of 2006-07. Dr. Mehrotra recalls there were a dozen policemen and intelligence personnel guarding the hospital room.

List of Actions

Posted Thu, 2009-11-05 12:00 by admin

November 5, 2009

Human Rights Film Festival at Manipur University, organized by INSAF
Talk/ Lecture by Deepti Priya Mehrotra at Manipur University on Sharmila

NOVEMBER 6, 2009 Hyderabad / INVITE for all interested

Film Screening in Solidarity with Sharmila - by the Centre for Women's Studies, University of Hyderabad
Venue: in the Conference Hall, School of Social Sciences
Time 1.30 pm

NOVEMBER 6, 2009

Public meeting at Delhi University on AFSPA

Hope fest pledges solidarity to Sharmila

Posted Thu, 2009-11-05 11:38 by admin

The Imphal Free Press

IMPHAL, Nov 2: A statewide capaign on festival of Hope, Justice and Peace organised by the Justice Foundation Manipur in support of the agitation by Irom Chanu Sharmila was inaugurated by Mahosweta Devi, Magsaysay Award winner and Doyen of Indian literature this afternoon at JN Dance Academy, in commemoration of completing nine years fast unto death agitation of Irom Chanu Sharmila demanding the repeal of the AFSPA from the state.

Mahosweta Devi, said the campaign will continue till November 6 in various parts of the state adding it is quite appropriate to call the 21st Century as the Century of Irom Sharmila for her endless courageous stands for the welfare of humanity.

Appreciating the spirits of honest sacrifice made by Sharmila for the welfare and safeguard of the people of the state demanding total repeal of AFSPA, she said Sharmila`s courageous spirits should not be forgotten by the people of the state as well by the country.

FAST ! in support of Sharmila's entry into 10 years TODAY of her hunger PROTEST against AFSPA

Posted Wed, 2009-11-04 11:48 by admin

INFO from Sushovan - Kolkatta

November 5, 2009, 12 hour hunger strike ( 6 am - 6 pm) in solidarity with Sharmila Irom in Manipur and other draconian laws in different parts of the country including in West Bengal.
Venue : Esplanade, opposite Metro Channel.
November 7, 2009 public convention on AFSPA

Information coming from IMPHAL - Manipur

Mahasweta Devi - hunger fast and dharna at Imphal
Deepti Priya Mehrotra - hunger fast and dharna at Imphal
Kavita Joshi - hunger fast and dharna at Imphal
Dr Sunilam - on his way to Join

Some friends have informed that they are FASTING - TODAY in solidarity with Irom Sharmila, who actually started her hunger protest on this day , November 4, 2000.
The solidarity FAST is being observed ANYWHERE - WHEREVER they are
Some of the list of those who are NOT EATING today :

Meghalaya Governer demand for repeal of Armed Forces Act

Posted Tue, 2009-11-03 11:46 by admin

STAFF Reporter
GUWAHATI, Nov 3 – A few days after Meghalaya Governor and Intelligence Bureau deputy director advocated repeal of the Armed Forces Special Power Act from the North East, Maj Gen (retd) Gaganjit Singh today lent his support to the repeal of the 'controversial' Act. "The AFSPA should be repealed from the region as it has not given security forces any sweeping power, as perceived by many," Maj Gen (retd) Singh told reporters here, on the sidelines of a day-long seminar on counter-terrorist operation organised by the Red Horns Division.

"Any person picked by the Army has to be handed over to the police within 24 hours and a medical examination done. A picked person is in a state of shock during the initial hours and we can hardly ever extract any information from him and, moreover, it also makes them psychologically tough knowing that they cannot be kept with the Army for more than a day.

Bhopal: Invitation for candle light Vigil on Irom Sharmila

Posted Tue, 2009-11-03 11:38 by admin

साथी,
इरोम शर्मिला एक युवा महिला हैं जो पिछले 10 वर्षों से आमरण अनशन पर हैं। उन्हें सरकार ने घर पर ही नजरबंद कर रखा है और जबरन नाक के रास्ते खाना खिलाया जा रहा है। वह सैन्य बल (विशेष अधिकार) अधिनियम 1958 की वापसी की मांग कर रही हैं।
गौरतलब है कि 2 नवम्बर को मणिपुर में सैन्यबल ( विशेष अधिकार) अधिनियम 1958 के विरू़द्ध इरोम शर्मिला अपने आमरण अनशन के दस वर्ष पूरे कर लेंगी। इसमें संदेह नहीं ये वर्ष भारतीय लोकतन्त्र के लिए शर्म में डूबे हुए वर्ष हैं।

http://manipurfreedom.org/

PUCL Bulletin, March 2005

An analysis of Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958
-- By The Asian Centre for Human Rights

[Also see, Repeal Armed Forces Special Power act -- By Pushkar Raj and Mahipal Singh, PUCL-Delhi, 13 August 2004. Click

The AFSPA: Lawless law enforcement according to the law?, ACHR, 5 January 2005. Click

Review of AFSPA: Too Little, Too Late, ACHR, 3 November 2004. Click ]

(AFSPA, much maligned law, is a piece that stands out because of its misuse and because of the provisions that give the security forces powers that go against the basic principles of rule of law. The Asian Centre for Human Rights has brought out a comprehensive reader on it. We bring excerpts from the Publication – Chief Editor)

Introduction
"An effective international strategy to counter terrorism should use human rights as its unifying framework. The suggestion that human rights violations are permissible in certain circumstances is wrong. The essence of human rights is that human life and dignity must not be compromised and that certain acts, whether carried out by State or non-State actors, are never justified no matter what the ends. International human rights and humanitarian law define the boundaries of permissible political and military conduct. A reckless approach towards human life and liberty undermines counter-terrorism measures". - Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in her report to the 58th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.1

It took an unusual form of protest by some members of the Meira Paibis, women activists, who stripped in front of the Kangla Fort, then headquarter of the Assam Rifles on 15 July 2004, followed by an equally unprecedented civil disobedience movement in Manipur never seen in independent India to establish the Committee to Review (hereinafter referred to as "Review Committee") the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 on 8 December 2004. The protests were against the alleged extrajudicial execution of Ms Thangjam Manorama Devi on the night of 11 July 2004 by the Assam Rifles personnel and the withdrawal of the AFSPA.
The AFSPA empowers the representative of the Central government, the governor to subsume the powers of the State government to declare "undefined" disturbed areas. It also empowers the non-commissioned officers of the armed forces to arrest without warrant, to destroy any structure that may be hiding absconders without any verification, to conduct search and seizure without warrant and to shoot even to the causing of death. No legal proceeding against abuse of such arbitrary powers can be initiated without the prior permission of the Central government. While introducing the AFSPA on 18 August 1958, the government accepted it as an emergency measure and it was supposed to have remained in operation only for one year.

The demand of the populace affected by the AFSPA either to completely withdraw or substantively review the Act is matched by the demand for its retention by the armed forces and the hawks. A section of the Apunba Lup, a congregation of 32 civil society organisations of Manipur leading the civil disobedience movement, called for a "public curfew" on 27 December 2004, the day members of the Review Committee reached Imphal, to press its demand for complete repeal of the AFSPA. Other members of the Apunba Lup and the family members of Manorama Devi, however, submitted their representations to the Review Committee. Immediately after the visit of the Review Committee to Manipur, General Officer Commanding in Chief (Eastern Region), Lt General Arvind Sharma in his first press conference at Kolkata on 3 January 2005 stated that the provisions of the AFSPA is "absolutely essential" to tackle insurgency in the country. "I am afraid that without the AFSPA, the Army will not be able to function in insurgency situations... Without the Act, we will be a reactive" -stated Lt General Sharma.2

The mushrooming of the non-State actors and violations of the international humanitarian laws by these groups are realities of the North East India. "There is no doubt that States have legitimate reasons, right and duty to take all due measures to eliminate terrorism to protect their nationals, human rights, democracy and the rule of law and to bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice".3 However, that does not give the State the right to take away the right to life in an intentional and unlawful way or violate human rights guaranteed under the constitution and international law. The AFSPA has become the main symbol of repression because of its sheer misuse as demonstrated in the various case studies of last few years provided in this study. In addition, a few armed opposition groups were also initially created by State agencies as a part of the counter-insurgency operations and these groups, later on, became Frankenstein monsters.4

There is no doubt that the armed forces operate in difficult and trying circumstances in the areas afflicted by internal armed conflicts. It is in these situations that the supremacy of the judiciary and the primacy of the rule of law need to be upheld. However, if the law enforcement personnel stoop to the same level as the non-State actors and perpetrate the same unlawful acts, there will be no difference between the law enforcement personnel and the non-State actors whom the government calls "terrorists".

This representation, submitted to the Review Committee, provides an analysis of the illegality of the provisions of the AFSPA, the abuse of these provisions and therefore the need for its review and specific recommendations. It also contains documents on national, regional and international human rights standards to ensure that amended the provisions of the AFSPA are "in consonance with the obligations of the Government towards protection of Human Rights". As Manipur has been the epicentre of the movement against the AFSPA, the case studies are cited mainly from Manipur. – Suhas Chakma, Director

Executive Summary
"... there (Assam and Manipur), they (certain misguided sections of the Nagas, in the words of Mr. Pant) are indulging in -arson, murder, loot, dacoity etc. So it has become necessary to adopt effective measures for the protection of the people in those areas. In order to enable the armed forces to handle the situation effectively wherever such problem arises hereafter, it has been considered necessary to introduce this Bill." - then Home Minister G B Pant while introducing the Armed Forces Special Powers Bill on 18 August 1958.

"In my humble opinion, this measure is unnecessary and also unwarranted. This Bill is sure to bring about complications and difficulties in those areas, especially in those which are going to be declared as disturbed areas. I fail to understand why the military authorities are to be invested with special powers. I have found that these military authorities have always committed excesses in many cases, especially in the sub-divisions of Kohima and Mokokchung. In such a situation, I do not like that the officers should be invested with special powers. Recently, such an incident took place in the Headquarters of the North Cachar and Mikir Hills District. Instead of rounding (up) the hostile Nagas, some military personnel trespassed into the houses of some retired tribal official and committed rape on the widow. So, such things have deteriorated the situation. The tribal people have risen against the military people there. It is, therefore, dangerous to invest the military authorities with extraordinary powers of killing and of arrest without warrant and of house breaking…… How can we imagine that these military officers should be allowed to shoot to kill and without warrant arrest and search? This is a lawless law. There are various provisions in the Indian Penal Code and in the Criminal Procedure Code and they can easily deal with the law and order situation in these parts. I am afraid that this measure will only severe the right of the people and harass innocent folk and deteriorate the situation."- Mr. Laishram Achaw Singh, MP from Inner Manipur Parliamentary Constituency while objecting to the AFSP Bill.5

Modelled on the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance promulgated by the colonial British government on 15 August 1942 to suppress "Quit India Movement", the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 (AFSPA) was initially supposed to have remained in operation for one year to tackle the Naga problem. However, after 45 years of imposition of the AFSPA, the Naga problem is far from resolved. The government of India and Naga armed opposition groups - both Issac-Muivah and Kaplang factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland - have been engaged in a peace process since July 1997. The peace process stresses the axiom that political problems cannot be resolved by merely terming it as law and order problems - "arson, murder, loot, dacoity" - crimes which are more associated with mainland India's Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.

There is no doubt that a large number of armed opposition groups operate in Manipur and elsewhere in the North East and that they have been responsible for gross human rights abuses. Yet, unlawful law enforcement only begets contempt for the rule of law and contributes to a vicious cycle of violence. The unusual form of demonstrations by some members of the Meira Paibis who stripped themselves in front of the Kangla Fort on 15 July 2004 was an act of desperation to protest against the systematic denial of access to justice even for unlawful, intentional, arbitrary, summary and extrajudicial deprivation of the right to life. The third preambular paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law" - is prophetic about such situations.

A reckless approach towards human life and liberty in the last 45 years under the AFPSA has been counter-productive and caused alienation of the people in the North East. The review of the AFSPA is overdue for many reasons.

First, the AFSPA has manifestly failed to contain, let alone resolve, all insurgency problems in the North East. When the AFSPA was imposed on 8 September 1980, there were only four armed opposition groups in Manipur - the United National Liberation Front, People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, People's Liberation Army, and National Socialist Council of Nagaland. However, today there are over two dozens armed opposition groups including the Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup, People's United Liberation Front, North East Minority Peoples Front, Islamic National Front, Islamic Revolutionary Front, United Islamic Liberation Army, Kuki National Army, Kuki National Front, Kuki Revolutionary Army, Zomi Revolutionary Army and the United Kuki Liberation Front, among others.

Second, there are adequate laws to deal with insurgency situations and the non-State actors. While India did not have specific laws in 1958 to deal with armed opposition The AFSPA: Lawless law enforcement according to the law? groups, it has subsequently adopted numerous draconian laws such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act), 1985 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002. After the lapse of these laws, the government of India amended the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 in December 2004 to incorporate the provisions of the POTA. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 as amended in 2004 is adequate to deal with all insurgent groups and their unlawful activities.

Third, the strength of any country claiming itself as "democratic" lies in upholding the supremacy of the judiciary and primacy of the rule of law. It requires putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the innocents and punishment for breaches of such provisions while exercising executive powers; and not in providing the arbitrary powers to the law enforcement personnel to be law unto themselves. The AFSPA violates basic tenets of criminal justice system in any civilized society. First, it provides special powers which tantamount to awarding heavier penalty to the suspects than convicted persons would get under normal court, a clear violation of the cardinal principle of criminal justice system - nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.6 Second, non-application of due process of law makes the armed forces to be their own judge and jury. Most importantly, by giving virtual impunity to the armed forces under Section 6 of the AFSPA which makes its mandatory to seek prior permission of the Central government to initiate any legal proceedings, the Executive has expressed its lack of faith in the judiciary. Otherwise, it would have been left to the judiciary to decide whether the charges are vexatious, abusive or frivolous.

Though, there is no need for retention of the AFSPA, the Review Committee appears to have already decided to retain the AFSPA with some amendments. It has called for representation on whether it should recommend to the government of India to "(i) amend the provisions of the Act to bring them in consonance with the obligations of the Government towards protection of Human Rights; or (ii) replace the Act by a more humane legislation." Both the proposals have the same end - the retention of the Act.
In order to uphold the supremacy of the judiciary and primacy of the rule of law, the Review Committee must ensure that the judgements of the Supreme Court of India and opinions of international bodies including the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the AFSPA are incorporated in the amended AFSPA. Leaving it to the armed forces to respect "Do's and Don'ts" issued by the army authorities as naively espoused by the Supreme Court of India in its controversial judgment on the constitutional validity of the AFSPA and to the courts to decide "case by case basis" have proved to be inadequate, ineffective and counter productive because of continued violations of human rights.

Extrajudicial Executions for Maintenance of Public Order
Since Manipur has been declared as a "disturbed area" on 8 September 1980, according to Manipur Chief Minister Lbobi Singh over 8,000 innocent persons and over 12,000 members of armed opposition groups and security forces have lost their lives.35

In practice, there are hundreds of armed encounters each year. Not every armed encounter is questioned. However, when people, whether innocent civilians, suspects or members of armed oppositions groups are captured from their houses or villages and routinely killed in fake encounters, allegations of extrajudicial killings surface. Yet, there has been little or no documentary evidence to prove that the victims were indeed arrested as no arrest memo is issued, not to mention about evidence to prove subsequent extrajudicial executions.

However, the extrajudicial execution of Ms Thangjam Manorama Devi has both exceptional as well as routine aspects.

It is exceptional because unlike hundreds of other arrests, the Assam Rifles personnel issued an arrest warrant. Havildar (General Duty) Suresh Kumar (No. 173355) of the 17th Assam Rifles signed the arrest memo. Rifleman T Lotha (No. 173916) and Rifleman Ajit Singh (No. 173491) signed as witnesses. The arrest memo stated that Ms Manorama Devi was arrested as a suspected member of the Peoples Liberation Army and they recovered nothing from her and that she was healthy at the time of her arrest.36
The recovery of Manorama's dead body from Ngariyan Mapao Maring village on the morning of 12 July 2004 with telltale signs of brutal torture all over her body is a routine matter.37

Prior to the inquiry into the death of Manorama Devi, Justice Upendra conducted over half a dozen similar inquiries. Justice Upendra Commission as required under normal law of the land summoned the concerned Assam Rifles personnel to depose as mere witness since they had signed the arrest warrant for Manorama. The fact that the Assam Rifles questioned the jurisdiction of the Upendra Commission of Inquiry on the ground that the State government had not taken prior permission from the Central government is nothing unusual either.

Impunity to the Armed Forces
Under Section 6 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, "No prosecution, suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers conferred by this Act."101

This provision violates India's treaty obligation under Article 2(3) of the ICCPR according to which:

"Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies."
What is more worrying is the fact that Section 6 of the AFSPA has been overtaken by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code102 (Cr.P.C.) amended in 1991 to provide virtual impunity to the armed forces. Impunity has been made a feature of normal criminal jurisprudence. In fact Section 197 of the Cr P.C. has made section 6 of the AFSPA redundant. If the Central government were to give permission under section 197 of the Cr P.C., there is no reason as to why the same permission will not be granted under Section 6 of the AFSPA.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions lucidly summarised the impunity and extra-judicial executions in her report to the 57th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights:
"Impunity for human rights offenders seriously undermines the rule of law, and also widens the gap between those close to the power structures and others who are vulnerable to human rights abuses. In this way, human rights violations are perpetuated or sometimes even encouraged, as perpetrators feel that they are free to act in a climate of impunity. ....., extrajudicial killings and acts of murder may sometimes also go unpunished because of the sex, religious belief, or ethnicity of the victim. Long-standing discrimination and prejudice against such groups are often used as justification of these crimes. The increasing difficulties in securing justice alienate the people from the State and may drive them to take the law into their own hands, resulting in a further erosion of the justice system and a vicious circle of violence and retaliation. If unaddressed, such situations may easily degenerate into a state of anarchy and social disintegration. Human rights protection and respect for the rule of law are central to lasting peace and stability. It is, therefore, crucial that conflict prevention strategies and post-conflict peace-building efforts include effective measures to end the culture of impunity and protect the rule of law."103

While examining the third periodic report of the government of India, an expert of the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated "Article 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which prevented all legal proceedings against members of the armed forces, was extremely worrying; if the Government's fear was that citizens would bring vexatious or frivolous actions, that was a matter better left to the courts to resolve. It was inadmissible for citizens to be deprived of a remedy as was at present the case".104

In its Concluding Observations, the United Nations Human Rights Committee noted "with concern that criminal prosecutions or civil proceedings against members of the security and armed forces, acting under special powers, may not be commenced without the sanction of the central Government. This contributes to a climate of impunity and deprives people of remedies to which they may be entitled in accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant".

There are adequate legal guarantees for preventing vexatious and frivolous actions. However, by making it mandatory to seek prior permission of the Central government to initiate any legal proceedings against the armed forces, the Executive has expressed its lack of faith in the judiciary of the country.

Abuses by the Armed Opposition Groups
1. Background on the Armed Opposition Groups in Manipur
Manipur literally meaning "A jeweled land" came under the British Rule as a Princely State after the defeat in the Anglo-Manipuri War of 1891. After independence of India in 1947, the Princely State of Manipur was merged in the Indian Union on 15 October 1949 and became a full-fledged State of India on the 21 January 1972.

Manipur was recognized as a state in 1972, nine years after Nagaland was created out of Assam in 1963. The Manipuri language was included in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution of India in 1992 after a prolong struggle.
Manipur is not only about the Meiteis who profess Vaisnavites Hinduism. It is also home to about 30 different tribes who profess Christianity. Some of the larger tribes include Nagas, Kukis, Paites, Thadous, Simtes, Vaipheis, Raltes, Gangtes and Hmars. Unlike the Meiteis, who occupy the Imphal Valley and constitute a little over 50% of the total population, the other tribes inhabit the surrounding hill districts.

The Meitei armed opposition groups were mainly based in Imphal valley although the Kuki Movement for Human Rights alleged that they have strengthened their bases in hilly areas.

The first armed opposition group, United National Liberation Front (UNLF), was formed on 24 November 1964 by Samarendra Singh demanding independence from India. Since then many armed opposition groups led by Meiteis were established with similar objectives. The People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) was formed in 1977. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) was formed in 1978. The Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) was formed in 1980. As an off-shoot of UNLF, Kanglei Yaol Kanba Lup (KYKL) was formed in 1990s. All the Meitei armed opposition groups reportedly function presently under the banner of Manipur People's Liberation Front (MPLF).112

After a series of clashes between Meiteis and the Pangals, the Manipuri muslims, in May, 1993 which led to the killings of 97 persons, a number of new outfits such as People's United Liberation Front (PULF), North East Minority Peoples Front (NEMPF), Islamic National Front, Islamic Revolutionary Front (IRF) and United Islamic Liberation Army (UILA) were formed.

Of the 40 Naga sub-tribes in the North East, there are over 20 Naga tribes in Manipur particularly in Ukhrul, Senapati, Chandel and Tamenglong districts. Both factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, the Issac-Muivah and Kaplang factions are active in Manipur. The Naga armed opposition groups demand independence of Naga inhabited areas. In the negotiation between the government of India and the NSCN (I-M), the issue of "Greater Nagaland" consisting of the Naga inhabited areas in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland has figured.

The Meiteis, the State government of Manipur and the Meitei armed opposition groups oppose the inclusion of the Naga inhabited areas into the so called Greater Nagaland. The extension of the cease-fire agreement between the National Socialist Council of Nagaland and the government of India into Manipur led to protest and the burning of the Manipur State assembly in June 2001. The State Government of Manipur however withdrew the ban on the NSCN on 30 November 2002.113

The conflicts between the Nagas and the Kukis since 1992 led to emergence of a number of Kuki armed opposition groups such as Kuki National Army (KNA), Kuki National Front (KNF), Kuki Revolutionary Army (KRA), Zomi Revolutionary Army (ZRA) and the United Kuki Liberation Front. Most of these Kuki outfits are demanding a "separate homeland" within the Indian union.

Since Manipur has been declared as a Disturbed Area in 1980, according to Manipur Chief Minister Ibobi Singh over 8,000 innocent persons and over 12,000 members of armed opposition groups and security forces have lost their lives.114

2. Executions by the Armed Opposition Groups
The armed opposition groups have been responsible for torture, extrajudicial executions, hostage taking, extortions and blatant violations of the provisions of International Humanitarian Laws. The victims include innocent civilians, alleged police informers and corrupt officials or simply inability to pay extortion money.

The people of Manipur are caught in a vicious cycle. The nexus between the political leaders and armed opposition groups is a public knowledge in Manipur. The extortion, euphemistically called as taxes by the armed opposition groups, is also public knowledge and often collected under the noses of the administration. Across the highways both the security forces and armed opposition groups extort from innocent people as well as businessmen.

The armed opposition groups reportedly collect taxes from sources - meaning a government official from a particular department has to collect the extortion money, euphemistically called "taxes" on behalf of the armed opposition groups who then distribute it among themselves. All government officials including the senior most officials allegedly pay taxes. In a rare incident, in June 2004, the State government accorded sanction for prosecution of two employees of the All India Radio, Imphal who are accused of collecting illegal "taxes" from fellow employees on behalf of three separate underground organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The two men, Meisnam Achou Singh, 56, of Keisampat Mutum Leirak, a programme executive, and Hijam Homendro Singh, 57, of Kongpal Khaidem Leikai, an accountant, allegedly collected a total of Rs. 3,34,310 from 122 fellow employees at the rate of 1% of basic pay, and paid the same to activists of the underground UNLF, PREPAK and KYKL during the year 2000.115

The situation of the Kukis exemplies the plight of the civilians. According to the Kuki Movement for Human Rights armed opposition groups forcibly stay in their villages, mix themselves with the civil population, use the civilians as human shields against the security forces. The villagers are used for sentry day and night on rotation as well as for cooking and carrying supplies needed by them. All paths are mined (land mine) thereby making free movement difficult both human being and domestic animals. The people also have to give food. When the security forces find the members of the armed opposition groups, the villagers are subjected to atrocities for informing the security forces. If the security forces come to know about the presence of the armed opposition groups, the villagers are once again blamed for proving shelter and support.116

Excerpts from the Supreme Court Judgement on Armed Forces Special Powers Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 Writ petition (Crl) 550 of 1982 with Writ Petition (C) Nos. 5328/80, 9229-30/82, Civil Appeals Nos. 721 to 724 of 1985, 2173-76/1991,2551/81 and Writ Petition (C) Nos. 13644-45/84
Naga People's Movement of Human Rights, etc. - Petitioner vs. Union of India - Respondent

Before J.S. Verma, CJI and other four Judges 27 November, 1997
Operative Part of the Judgement (Relevant extracts) 74. In the light of the above discussion we arrive at the following conclusions:
(1) Parliament was competent to enact the Central Act in exercise of the legislative power conferred on it under Entry 2 of List I and Article 248 read with Entry 97 of List I. After the insertion of Entry 2A in List I by the Forty Second Amendment of the Constitution, the legislative power of Parliament to enact the Central Act flows from Entry 2A of List I. It is not a law in respect of maintenance of public order falling under Entry I and List II.
(2) The expression 'in aid of the civil power" in Entry 2A of List I and in Entry 1 of List II implies that deployment of the armed forces of the Union shall be for the purpose of enabling the civil power in the State to deal with the situation affecting maintenance of public order which has necessitated the deployment of the armed forces in the State.

(3) The word 'aid" postulates the continued existence of the authority to be aided. This would mean that even after deployment of the armed forces the civil power will continue to function.

(4) The power to make a law providing for deployment of the armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power of a State does not include within its ambit the power to enact a law which would enable the armed forces of the Union to supplant or act as a substitute for the civil power in the State. The armed forces of the Union would operate in the State concerned in cooperation with the civil administration so that the situation which has necessitated the deployment of armed forces is effectively dealt with and normalcy is restored.

(5) The Central Act does not displace the civil power of the State by the armed forces of the Union and it only provides for deployment of armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power.

(6) The Central Act cannot be regarded as a colourable legislation or a fraud on the Constitution. It is not a measure intended to achieve the same result as contemplated by a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 or a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution.

(7) Section 3 of the Central act does not confer an arbitrary or unguided power to declare an area as a 'disturbed area". For declaring an area as a 'disturbed area" under Section 3 there must exist a grave situation of law and order on the basis of which the Governor/Administrator of the State/Union territory of the Central Government can from an opinion that the area is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of the armed forces in aid of civil power is necessary.

(8) A declaration under Section 3 has to be for a limited duration and there should be periodic review of the declaration before the expiry of six months.

(9) Although a declaration under Section 3 can be made by the Central Government suo motto without consulting the concerned State Government, but it is desirable that the State Government be consulted while making the declaration.

(10) The conferment of the power to make a declaration under Section 3 of the Central Act on the Governor of the State cannot be regarded as delegation of the power of the Central Government.

(11) The conferment of the power to make a declaration under Section 3 of the Central Act of the Government is not violative of the federal scheme as envisaged by the Constitution.

(12) The provision contained in Sections 130 and 131 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as comparable and adequate to deal with the situation requiring the use of armed forces in aid of civil power as envisaged by the Central Act.

(13) The powers conferred under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Central Act on the officers of the armed forces, including a Non-Commissioned Officer, are not arbitrary and unreasonable and are not violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution.

(14) While exercising the powers conferred under Section 4(a) of the Central Act, the officer in the armed forces shall use minimal force required for effective action against the person/persons acting in contravention of the prohibitory order.

(15) A person arrested and taken into custody in exercise of the powers under Section 4(c) of the Central Act should be handed over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station with least possible delay so that he can be produced before nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time taken for journey from the place of arrest to the court of magistrate.

(16) The property or the arms, ammunition etc., seized during the course of search conducted under Section 4(d) of the Central Act must be handed over to officer in charge of the nearest police station together with a report of the circumstances occasioning such search and seizure.

(17) The provisions of Cr.P.C. governing search and seizure have to be followed during the course of search and seizure conducted in exercise of the power conferred under Section 4(d) of the Central Act.

(18) Section 6 of the Central Act in so far as it confers a discretion on the Central Government to grant or refuse sanction for instituting prosecution or suit or proceeding against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. Since the order of the Central Government refusing or granting the sanction under Section 6 is subject to judicial review, the Central Government shall pass an order giving reasons.

(19) While exercising the power conferred under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 4 the officers of the armed forces shall strictly follow the instructions contained in the list of 'Do's and Don'ts" issued by the army authorities which are binding and any disregard to the said instructions would entail suitable action under the Army Act, 1950.

(20) The instructions contained in the list of 'Do's and Don'ts" shall be suitably amended so as to bring them in conformity with the guidelines contained in the decisions of this Court and to incorporate the safeguards that are contained in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Central Act as construed and also the direction contained in the order of this Court dated July 4, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 1991.

(21) A complaint containing an allegation about misuse or abuse of the powers conferred under the Central Act shall be thoroughly inquired into and, if on enquiry it is found that the allegations are correct, the victim should be suitably compensated and the necessary sanction for institution of prosecution and/or suit or other proceeding should be granted under Section 6 of the Central Act.

http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2005/afspa.htm

Irom Chanu Sharmila

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irom Sharmila Chanu

Born	March 14, 1972 Kongpal, Imphal, Manipur, India
Occupation	Civil rights activist, Politicalactivist, Poet
Parents	Irom c Nanda (father) Irom Ongbi Sakhi (mother)

Irom Sharmila Chanu (born March 14, 1972), also known as the "Iron Lady of Manipur" or "Menghoubi" ("the fair one")^[1] is a civil rights activist, political activist, and poet from the Indian state of Manipur. Since 2 November 2000, she has been on hunger strike to demand that the Indian government repeal the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), which she blames for violence in Manipur and other parts of India's northeast.^[2] Having refused food and water for more than 500 weeks, she has been called "the world's longest hunger striker".^[3]

[hide]

[edit]Decision to fast

On November 2, 2000, in Malom, a town in the Imphal Valley of Manipur, ten civilians were allegedly shot and killed by the Assam Rifles, one of the Indian Paramilitary forces operating in the state, while waiting at a bus stop.^[4]^[5] The incident later came to be known to activists as the "Malom Massacre".^[6] The next day's local newspapers published graphic pictures of the dead bodies, including one of a 62-year old woman, Leisangbam Ibetomi, and 18-year old Sinam Chandramani, a 1988 National Child Bravery Award winner.^[5]

Sharmila, the 28-year-old daughter of a Grade IV veterinary worker, began to fast in protest of the killings, taking neither food nor water.^[7] As her brother Irom Singhajit Singh recalled, "The killings took place on 2 November 2000. It was a Thursday. Sharmila used to fast on Thursdays since she was a child. That day she was fasting too. She has just continued with her fast". 4 November is also given as the start day of her fast. On the Friday third of November she had her last supper of pastries and sweets then touched her mother's feet and asked permission to fulfill her bounden duty.^[8] Her primary demand to the Indian government was the repeal of the AFSPA, which allowed soldiers to indefinitely detain any citizen on suspicion of being a rebel.^[4] The act has been blamed by opposition and human rights groups for permitting torture, forced disappearances, and extrajudicial executions.^[4]^[7]

Three days after she began her strike, she was arrested by the police and charged with an "attempt to commit suicide", which is unlawful under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, and was later transferred to judicial custody.^[8] Her health deteriorated rapidly, and the police then forcibly had to use nasogastric intubation in order to keep her alive while under arrest.^[3] Since then, Irom Sharmila has been regularly released and re-arrested every year since under IPC section 309, a person who "attempts to commit suicide" is punishable "with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year [or with fine, or with both]".^[8]^[9]

[edit]Continued activism

By 2004, Sharmila had become an "icon of public resistance".^[4] Following her procedural release On 2 October 2006, for around four months,Irom Sharmila Chanu went to Raj Ghat, New Delhi, which she said was "to pay floral tribute to my idol, Mahatma Gandhi." Later that evening, Sharmila headed for Jantar Mantar for a protest demonstration where she was joined by students, human rights activists and other concerned citizens.^[7] On 6 October, she was re-arrested by the Delhi police for attempting suicide and was taken to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, where she wrote letters to the Prime Minister, President, and Home Minister.^[7] At this time, she met and won the support of Nobel-laureate Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Laureate and human rights activist, who promised to take up Sharmila's cause at the United Nations Human Rights Council.^[7]

On 23 August 2011, Sharmila was involved in the wave of Anti-corruption movement on invitation by Anna Hazare via letter.^[10]^[11] Following Mr Hazare's promise to visit Imphal and support Sharmila there he announced in an interview with NDTV on September 13 that he would be sending two representatives to meet with Sharmila soon to prepare for the meeting ^[12] Trinamool Congress have reiterated their support for her ^[13]. The Communist Party of India (CPI ML) has also reiterated their support for her and for repeal of AF(SP)A ^[14].

[edit]International attention

Sharmila was nominated to the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize by a Guwahati-based woman's organization, the North East Network.^[15]

She was awarded the 2007 Gwangju Prize for Human Rights, which is given for "an outstanding person or group, active in the promotion and advocacy of Peace, Democracy and Human Rights".^[16] She shared the award with Lenin Raghuvanshi of People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights, a northeastern Indian human rights organization.^[16] In Addition the largest monetary prize the first Rabindranath Tagore Peace Prize was given to her in 2010 by the New Delhi IIPM.^[17] She was awarded the Sarva Gunah Sampannah '" Award for Peace and Harmony" ^[18] aka the 12th Signature Women of Substance award (Assam) also in 2010.^[19] 2009 she was awarded the first Mayillama Award (Kerala).^[20] And in 2010 in the presence of the Law Minister Sri V Moilly in Bangalore she was awarded in absentia a lifetime achievement award.^[21] She was most recently awarded an Adivasi Ratna award accepted by her brother.^[22]

On 28 November 2010, UK Green Party leader and European Parliament member Keith Taylor wrote to the Indian government seeking the release of Sharmila and the repeal of the AFSPA.^[23] Her main supporter in the European Union is Sir Graham Watson KB MEP ^[24] chair of the India/EU delegation of MEPs. He has consistently made interventions on her behalf most recently to Dr J Bhagwati Indian Ambassador to the EU who responded on 1 July 2011 to his request to respond to the death threats made against Irom Sharmila. Indian Ambassadors reference BRU/AMB/48/2011 Embassy of India, 1050 Brussels. He responds only that he understands that Irom Sharmila is a hunger striker and that the modification of AF(SP)A is under consideration. Previously in April 2011 Sri Graham Watson and the EU delegation had tried to visit Manipur but were not allowed to do so by the Indian Authorities. They visit each year this year they were allowed to visit, Delhi, Patna and Mumbai. Although Keith Taylor did write three letters on one occasion he has never responded to further input. Sri Graham Watson and other members of the EU delegation do always respond to further requests for help. For example a Dutch member of the India EU delegation Peter Van Dalen whose special interest group is Dalit and subaltern groups released this press statement for publication at the gathering at her tenth anniversary of fasting in November 2010 ^[25] Smt Sharon Bowles MEP sent Sharmila a personal letter of support which is now with Sharmila. She had added her personal regret that Sharmila was not nominated for the Sakharov last year due to insufficient support from other MEPs a nomination requires at least 40 MEP signatories. This year's nominations close on 13 September 2010. Another MEP member of the EU/India Delegation has stated that he does not believe Sharmila will be nominated this year either as very few MEPs know of her or Manipur.

The European MEPs were initially brought in by one of her Western campaigners Nicholas Crawford a philosophy student at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge. He also chairs a small student think tank. The Wilberforce Society.^[26] At the annual garden party Mr Crawford gave a speech about Irom Sharmila and the AFSPA in attendance was their patron Lord Wilson, a former head of the civil service, and Sir Christopher Hum, former UK ambassador to China. Before Xmas they hope to have a seminar on India and Human Rights. And plan to visit Manipur and Sharmila next summer. Sharmila has many letters from offices of Western Dignatories including those of HM Queen Elizabeth II, The Duchess of Cornwall, The President of Eire, Tony Blair and most recently the Scottish First Minister and the Mayor of London all stating that they are sorry about her circumstances but are unable to offer her any assistance. But she has always cared more about genuine letters seeking to make connections. The only campaign that has the endorsement of her office is http://kanglaonline.com/2011/06/facebook-event-write-to-irom-sharmila-chanu/ the one asking for letters, postcards etc and provide her with some support in her lonely campaign. The letters were presented to her in the form of a printed personalized slam book titled "Echel for Eche" a Pan Manipur initiative on 11 October 2011.

In Turkey 8–11 December 2010 The Which Human Rights Festival organized by the Turkish Human Rights Group the Documentarist was dedicated to Irom Sharmila ^[27]

The controversial BJP politician Varun Gandhi also a descendant of the Pandit-Nehru lineage recently used an internet tweet to announce his support of her ^[28] She has written a lot of poetry most recently a 12 poem bilingual anthology (Meiteilol and English), "Fragrance of Peace" (Nungsigi Leinam), was released by Zubaan books to coincide with the tenth year of her detention,^[29] with profits used to support her cause. This appears to have been a project first suggested by Norwegian designer Mr Lars Muller, who was appointed in December 2007 by the World Organization against Torture OMCT as her 'Defending the Defenders' sponsor.^[30]^[31]

[edit]Works on her life

Deepti Priya Mehrotra's Burning Bright: Irom Sharmila and the Struggle for Peace in Manipur details Sharmila's life and the political background of her fast.^[32]

Kavita Joshi's short documentary My Body My Weapon (released by Why Democracy? in 2007) alleges violations by security forces that fuel Sharmila's resolve to keep fasting until AFSPA is repealed.^[33] Tales from the Margins, a twin project of the above film, also focuses on Sharmila, locating her resistance in the larger context of women's protests against the AFSPA in Manipur.

Ojas S V, a theatre artist from Pune has been performing a mono-play titled Le Mashale (Take the torch), based on Irom Sharmila's life and struggle at several places in India. It is an adaptation of Meira Paibi (Women bearing torches), a drama written by Malayalam playwright Civic Chandran.^[34]^[35]

Recently Save Sharmila Campaign has been launched by a joint network of civil societies (NAPM, Gandhi Global Family, Asha Parivar, Jagriti Mahila Samiti, Yuva Koshish, Asian Centre of Social Studies and Mission Bhartiyam. They all are raising voice for Irom Sharmila. Save Sharmila Campaign has organised a candle light solidarity prayer^[36] on 25th JUNE 2011 at Rajghat New Delhi. Approximately 200 people participated in it from all walks of life. Later on Volunteer of Save Sharmila Campaign met with Irom Sharmila on5th JULY 2011. Volunteer Md Tanveer Iqbal Editor Situationsasia fortnightly e-mag shared the campaign strategy with Irom and received her message for the campaign. Well he met her briefly during one of her habeas corpus hearings at Lamphel. A Srinagar to Imphal jouney^[37]and National Signature Campaign also planned by Save Sharmila Campaign volunteers in the month of October. Save Sharmila Campaign Volunteers demand with government To take positive steps of talks To send all party delegation to meet Irom To send special team of doctors for health check up of Irom.^[38]^[39] Other activites also planned and campaign is still running.

Politically the Janata Dal minority opposition party has publicly agreed to campaign for AF(SP)A repeal during the monsoon session of the Indian Parliament. Within Cabinet Dr Singh the PM has publicly asked for a reform of AF(SP)A to make it more humane. Sr V Moilly who also chaired the second adminstrative reforms committee one of whose recommendations was the repeal of AF(SP)A also supports change. As do the Home Secretary Sri Pillai and the Home Union Minister Sri Chidambaram. Though Sri Pillai has asked for local CMs not to apply for disturbed area status and therefore AF(SP)A whether on the books or not would cease to apply. To this end Sharmila's spokesman has requested Manipuris to vote for MLAs who pledge to lift disturbed area status from Manipur and not to seek it again until or unless AF(SP)A is repealed. The Manipur State Assembly elections will be announced sometime in 2012. If MLAs adopt this resolution Sharmila's satyagraha ends with victory and she may return to normal life. Mr A K Antony the defence minister and General Singh commander in chief of the Indian Armed Forces lead the opposition to change or repeal of AF(SP)A

On August 21, 2011, Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy, in her The Hindu editorial on Anna Hazare, contrasted Anna's media-publicized fast with the decade-long fast of Irom, including the motivations for both.^[40]

Save Sharmila Campaign organised documentary screening and panel discussion in various colleges of Delhi with support of its student coordinators and volunteers. Screening and discussion already organised in September month in South Asian University, Delhi College of Arts & Commerce. Core Committee of Save Sharmila Campaign have already get support from various eminent social activists. Main members of Save Sharmila Campaign are Faisal Khan, Ravi Nitesh, Md Tanveer, Qamar Intekhab, Veena Behan, Gufran Khan, Devika Mittal, Manisha Kaushik, Aditya Diwedi & Sandeep Mishra. This campaign has already received message of Irom Sharmila. Singhjit (Irom's brother) is coordinating the campaign in Imphal. Campaign already announced Natiowide Signature Program from 02nd October 03 PM.

[edit]References

Eastern Panorama - http://easternpanorama.in/

^ Rituparna Chatterjee (20 April 2011). "Spot the Difference: Hazare vs. Irom Sharmila". Sinlung. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
^ "Manipur Fasting Woman Re-arrested". BBC News. 9 March 2009. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
^ ^a ^b Andrew Buncombe (4 November 2010). "A decade of starvation for Irom Sharmila". The Independent. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Nilanjana S. Roy (8 February 2011). "Torchbearers for Victims in a Violent Land". New York Times. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
^ ^a ^b Rahul Pathak (6 August 2004). "Why Malom is a big reason for Manipur anger against Army Act". IndianExpress.com. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
^ Malom Massacre
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Shoma Chaudhury (5 December 2009). "Irom And The Iron In India's Soul". Tehelka. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Manipur fasting woman re-arrested". BBC News. 9 March 2009. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
^ Section 309 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
^ [1]
^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2403845.ece
^ http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/highlights-of-anna-hazare-s-interview-to-ndtv-133365
^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mamatas-help-sought-for-raising-voice-against-AFSPA/articleshow/10393207.cms
^ http://kanglaonline.com/2011/09/cpi-ml-to-show-solidarity-to-sharmila-with-nationwide-agitation/
^ "Irom Sharmila: A potent revolutionary fights the unacceptable". headlinesindia.com. 6 March 2011. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
^ ^a ^b "Gwangju Prize for Human Rights". May 18 Memorial Foundation. Retrieved 24 April 2011.
^ Irom Sharmila awarded Rabindranath Tagore peace award - India - DNA
^ [2]
^ The Sentinel
^ The Assam Tribune Online
^ INDIA: Human rights defender awarded for lifetime achievement — Asian Human Rights Commission
^ Irom Chanu Sharmila Gets Adivasi Ratna Award — manipurhub.com
^ K Sarojkumar Sharma (28 November 2010). "EU leader seeks Sharmila release". srai.org. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
^ [3]
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]
^ [7]
^ Zubaan Books: Books
^ [8]
^ "Actions realised within the framework of the sponsorship project". In the OMCT website third paragraph for actions realized within 2009 it states that the project of publication of 12 poems through the collaboration of her Norwegian sponsor Mr Lars Muller could not be realized due to problems with the Indian Partner. World Organization against Torture OMCT. Retrieved 27 August 2011.
^ Penguin Review, Burning Bright
^ Iron Lady Of Manipur- The Worlds Longest Hunger Striker
^ The Hindu, For a Noble cause
^ Times of India, Single act that captures a dozen wounds of Manipur
^ Civil society questions govt, why ignoring Sharmila's fast | National Alliance of People's Movements
^ Srinagar to Imphal: A journey to save Sharmila - The Sunday Indian
^ More join Sharmila cause
^ Nationwide campaign for Sharmila in Sept - Times Of India
^ Arundhati Roy (21 August 2011). "I'd rather not be Anna". In regards to Anna's anti-corruption activism, now known across the sub-continent as "The Fast", Roy reminded readers: "'The Fast', of course, doesn't mean Irom Sharmila's fast that has lasted for more than ten years (she's being force fed now) against the AFSPA, which allows soldiers in Manipur to kill merely on suspicion".. The Hindu. Retrieved 27 August 2011.

View page ratings

Rate this page

What's this?

Trustworthy

Objective

Complete

Well-written

I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)

Categories:

After Ramdev, Anna, Sri Sri Ravishankar is plan C of RSS-BJP: Digvijaya Singh

PTI | Oct 27, 2011, 04.58PM IST

After Ramdev, Anna, Sri Sri plan C of RSS-BJP: DigvijayaSee photo

NEW DELHI: Upping the ante, Congress leader Digvijaya Singh on Thursday alleged that the anti-corruption stir by Anna Hazare and Ramdev were part of an over-all plan of RSS- BJP to divert attention from Sangh's "terror links" and warned spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar that he too could be used by them.
The AICC general secretary said that while Ramdev and Anna Hazare were plan A and B of the Sangh-BJP, Sri Sri Ravishankar is plan C and asked the spiritual guru to be "wary" of the two organisations.
Singh remarked on the microblogging site Twitter "Plan A, B and C are of Sangh/ BJP to divert the minds of the people from their involvement in terror activities to corruption."
Later talking to reporters, he said that plan A of this over-all scheme has been Baba Ramdev, B is Anna and C is Sri Sri Ravishankar.
"I hold Sri Ravi Shankarji in high esteem and have done a course in the Art of Living as CM MP in 2001. He should be wary of Sangh/ BJP," Singh remarked in another post on twitter.
Reacting to it, Sri Sri said, "People write so many things. I do not react to every comment. Everybody is entitled to his views."
Singh, however, told reporters that all this is a part of an over-all plan of RSS-BJP combine to "divert" the attention of the people of the country "to corruption from the issue of involvement of Sangh activists in terror activities" in Malegaon, Modasa, Hyderabad, Ajmersharif and Samjhouta Express."
Claiming that the UPA government under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi and Prime MinisterManmohan Singh has taken "all posstible steps" including to bring Right to Information (RTI) Act and making Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act stricter to check corruption, Singh charged that BJP's record on action over charges of corruption has been "pathetic".
Reacting sharply to Singh's charges, BJP said the Congress leader was attempting to "demonise" all those who are fighting against corruption.

"I compliment Digvijaya Singh for his important plan of almost shameless way of demonising all those who are fighting against corruption. Good luck to him. The more he speaks, more the Congress will lose its credibility," chief spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad said.

Singh has in the past accused RSS of "spreading terrorism and making bomb factories". Following the anti-graft agitation by yoag guru Ramdev and Team Anna, the Congress leader has alleged that they were being backed by the Sangh.

Noting that the UPA has taken action against corrupt people in spite of the fact that they were allies, Singh questioned, "Why BJP did not register a case against (its former president) Bangaru Laxman under Prevention of Corruption Act when he was caught on camera taking money?

"Why was the BJP MP ( Dilip Singh Judev) not sent to jail when he was caught on television cameras accepting bribe. Why a case was not registered against Jaya Jaitley whe she was caught on tape striking deal with arms-dealers in the house of then defence minister ( George Fernandes)?"

Images for Shri Shri ravishankar
- Report images
The Art of Living Foundation - Yoga | Meditation | Sudarshan Kriya ...
www.artofliving.org/
Learn Sudarshan Kriya directly from Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. 11th Nov 2011 - 13th Nov 2011. International Women's Conference 2012. 3rd Feb 2012 - 5th Feb ...
Sudarshan Kriya - Art of Living Course (18+ yrs) - Knowledge Sheets - Contacts
The Art of Living Foundation - Yoga | Meditation | Sudarshan Kriya ...
us.artofliving.org/
His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living had an hour ...
Show more results from artofliving.org
Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_(spiritual_leader)
Sri Sri Ravishankar at Art Of Living International Center, Bengaluru ... Ravi Shankar (Tamil: ரவி ஷங்கர்) usually known as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, born Ravi ...
Life - Teaching - Spirituality - Peace and humanitarian work
Sri Sri Ravishankar Vidya Mandir
maps.google.co.in

37a, Alipore Road, Alipore, Alipore Road

Kolkata, West Bengal 700027

033 24568316

Train: Majerhat

Place page - Write a review - Is this accurate?
Home | Sri Sri Ravi Shankar - Official Website
srisriravishankar.org/
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a humanitarian, spiritual leader and an ambassador of peace. He is the founder of the Art of Living Foundation which, through its various ...
Tour Schedule - Contact - Biography - Latest News
Short Biography | Sri Sri Ravi Shankar - Official Website
srisriravishankar.org/biography
The icon of non-violence and universal human values, Sri Sri seeks global ...
Show more results from srisriravishankar.org
Wisdom from Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
wisdomfromsrisriravishankar.blogspot.com/
31 Jul 2011 – Have you ever felt while reading Sri Sri's Wisdom Blog. that these words were spoken just for you? Wisdom from Sri Sri Ravi Shankar tugs at ...
Videos for Shri Shri ravishankar

- Report videos

► 4:33► 4:33

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar... the ...

youtube.com

29 Apr 2009

► 7:51► 7:51

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar...

youtube.com

6 Feb 2009

►►

Walk The Talk with Sri Sri Ravi ...

ndtv.com

23 Aug 2011

SSRVM – Sri Sri Ravishankar Vidya Mandir
ssrvm.org/
It is the personality that is appreciated everywhere. Such pleasing personality is what is the main aim of this education. " -His Holiness Sri Sri Ravishankar ...
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar: The Way of Grace
www.srisri.com/
A beautiful introduction to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and his teachings . . .
Sri Sri Ravishankar - Shri Shri Ravishankar Biography - Life History ...
www.thecolorsofindia.com/ravishankar/index.html
Here is given the biography of Shri Shri Ravishankar. Check out the life history of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.

News for Shri Shri ravishankar

*	I'm not afraid of anyone, will continue to fight corruption: Shri ... Daily Bhaskar - 9 hours ago New Delhi: Reacting to the Congress general secretary's advice, Spiritual Guru Shri Shri Ravishankar said that Digvijay Singh can have his views....

Did you mean to search for: Shri Shri ravi shankar

Searches related to Shri Shri ravishankar

shri shri ravi shankar bhajans

sri sri ravi shankar fraud

shri shri ravi shankar quotes

shri shri ravi shankar bhajans download

shri shri ravi shankar photos

shri shri ravi shankar songs

shri shri ravi shankar books

shri shri ravi shankar bhajans free download

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar hits back at Digvijaya, asks him to join Art of Living

Congress leader Digvijaya Singh Thursday denounced Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as a BJP-RSS agent, prompting the spiritual guru to ask the politician to join his Art of Living course.
Saying he could not respond to everything stated about him, Ravi Shankar suggested in Bangalore that Digvijaya Singh could join Art of Living, a group that offers various courses to achieve better quality life.
"People write a lot of things about everyone, I cannot respond to all of them," Ravi Shankar said.
"I will continue to work against corruption. I am not afraid of anyone," he added.
Ravi Shankar's comments followed Digvijaya Singh's comments earlier Thursday that Ravi Shankar was "Plan C" of the BJP-RSS combine in order to divert public attention from its "terror links".
He identified the other "plans" of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its ideological mentor Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh as yoga guru Baba Ramdev as well as anti-corruption crusaderAnna Hazare.
"I have been saying from day one, that all this is a part of the overall plan BJP-RSS combine," Digvijaya Singh said, referring to the anti-corruption campaigns by the three that have shaken the government and the Congress party.
"They want to divert the attention of people of this country from the issue of involvement of Sangh activists in terror," he said.
"Therefore, there is an overall plan. Plan A Baba Ramdev, Plan B Anna and Plan C Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Maharaj," he added.
In a separate statement, Ravi Shankar said while legislation was needed to combat corruption, "a law alone cannot bring down corruption. A moral and spiritual wave has to be created".
He said he has been speaking against corruption and would continue to do so. "Even yesterday (Wednesday), (I) administered oath to one lakh people to not give or take bribe," the Ari of Living founder added.
Digvijaya Singh said that while the Congress had taken steps to control corruption, the BJP had not done much.
"UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government has taken all possible steps," he said, referring to the Right to Information Act and the jailing of allegedly corrupt politicians, officials and company executives.
"Why did BJP not register a case against Bangaru Laxman when he was caught taking money on tape? Why a case was not registered against Jaya Jaitley when she was caught on tape striking a deal with an arms dealer in defence minister's house?" he asked.
The BJP hit back.
"Digvijaya Singh may make any plan he likes, he will only destroy the reputation of Congress in the country," BJP leader Ravishankar Prasad said.
"The country is angry over black money and corruption. Whoever speaks against it, whether Baba Ramdev or Annaji or civil society, he (Digvijaya) goes ... against all of them and says all kinds of things," he said.

Armed Forces Special Powers Act:

A study in National Security tyranny

1. INTRODUCTION

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is one of the more draconian legislations that the Indian Parliament has passed in its 45 years of Parliamentary history. Under this Act, all security forces are given unrestricted and unaccounted power to carry out their operations, once an area is declared disturbed. Even a non-commissioned officer is granted the right to shoot to kill based on mere suspicion that it is necessary to do so in order to "maintain the public order".

The AFSPA gives the armed forces wide powers to shoot, arrest and search, all in the name of "aiding civil power." It was first applied to the North Eastern states of Assam and Manipur and was amended in 1972 to extend to all the seven states in the north- eastern region of India. They are Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland, also known as the "seven sisters". The enforcement of the AFSPA has resulted in innumerable incidents of arbitrary detention, torture, rape, and looting by security personnel. This legislation is sought to be justified by the Government of India, on the plea that it is required to stop the North East states from seceeding from the Indian Union. There is a strong movement for self-determination which precedes the formation of the Indian Union.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

As the great Himalayan range dividing South and Central Asia runs down the east, it takes a southward curve and splits into lower hill ranges. The hills are punctuated by valleys and the valleys are washed by the rivers that drain into to the Bay of Bengal. Waves of people settled in these blue hills and green valleys at various times in history. They brought with them cultures and traditions. The new interacted with the old and evolved into the unique cultural mosaic that characterizes the region.

Through the centuries, these hills and valleys have bridged South, South East, and Central Asia. On today's geo-political map, a large part of the original region constitutes the seven states of the Republic of India, but its political, economic and socio-cultural systems have always been linked with South East Asia. The great Hindu and Muslim empires that reigned over the Indian sub-continent never extended east of the Bhramaputra river.

India's British colonizers were the first to break this barrier. In the early 19th century, they moved in to check the Burmese expansion into today's Manipur and Assam. The British, with the help of the then Manipur King, Gambhir Singh, crushed the Burmese imperialist dream and the treaty of Yandabo was signed in 1828. Under this treaty, Assam became a part of British India and the British continued to influence the political affairs of the region.

This undue interference eventually led to the bloody Anglo- Manipuri conflict of 1891. The British reaffirmed their position but were cognizant of the ferocious spirit of independence of these people and did not administer directly but only through the King.

It was during the Second World War, when the Japanese tried to enter the Indian sub-continent through this narrow corridor, that the strategic significance of the region to the Indian armed forces was realised. With the bombing of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a disenchanted Japanese had to retreat from Imphal and Kohima fronts, however the importance of control over the region subsequently remained a priority for the Government of India.

With the end of the war, the global political map was changed over night. As the British were preparing to leave Asia, the Political Department of the British Government planned to carve out a buffer state consisting of the Naga Hills, Mikir Hills, Sadiya Area, Balipara Tract, Manipur, Lushai Hills, Khasi and Hills in Assam, as well as the Chin Hills and the hills of northern Burma. The impending departure of the British created confusion and turmoil over how to fill the political vacuum they would leave behind. Ultimately, the various territories were parceled out to Nehru's India, Jinnah's Pakistan, Aung Sang's Burma and Mao's China according to strategic requirements. As expected, there were some rumblings between the new Asiatic powers on who should get how much - India and Burma over Kabow valley, India and East Pakistan over Chittagong Hill Tracts, and India and China over the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), present day Arunachal Pradesh.

Compromises were made, and issues were finally settled in distant capitals, to the satifaction of the new rulers. The people who had been dwelling in these hills and valleys for thousands of years were systematically excluded from the consultation process. The Indian share of the British colonial cake in this region constitutes the present "Seven Sisters" states of the North-East.

Over the years, thanks to the British, the advent of western education and contact with new ideas brought about the realization that the old ways had to give way to the new. Indigenous movements evolved as the people aspired to a new social and political order. For example, in the ancient Kingdom of Manipur, under the charismatic leadership of Hijam Irabot, a strong popular democratic movement against feudalism and colonialism was raging. After the departure of the British, the Kingdom of Manipur was reconstituted as a constitutional monarchy on modern lines by passing the Manipur Constitution Act, 1947.

Elections were held under the new constitution. A legislative assembly was formed. In 1949, Mr V P Menon, a senior representative of the Government of India, invited the King to a meeting on the pretext of discussing the deteriorating law and order situation in the state at Shillong. Upon his arrival, the King was allegedly forced to sign under duress the merger agreement. The agreement was never ratified in the Manipur Legislative Assembly. Rather, the Assembly was dissolved and Manipur was kept under the charge of a Chief Commissioner. There were protests, but the carrot-and-stick policy launched by the Indian Government successfully suppressed any opposition.

The Naga Movement

At the beginning of the century, the inhabitants of the Naga Hills, which extend across the Indo-Burmese border, came together under the single banner of Naga National Council (NNC), aspiring for a common homeland and self-governance. As early as 1929, the NNC petitioned the Simon Commission, which was examining the feasibility of future of self-governance of India. The Naga leaders were adamantly against Indian rule over their people once the British pulled out of the region. Mahatma Gandhi publicly announced that the Nagas had every right to be independent. His assertion was based on his belief in non-violence, he did not believe in the use of force or an unwilling union.

Under the Hydari Agreement signed between NNC and British administration, Nagaland was granted protected status for ten years, after which the Nagas would decide whether they should stay in the Union or not. However, shortly after the British withdrew, independent India proclaimed the Naga Territory as part and parcel of the new Republic.

The NNC proclaimed Nagaland's independence. In retaliation, Indian authorities arrested the Naga leaders. An armed struggle ensued and there were large casualties on either side. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act is the product of this tension.

In 1975, some Naga leaders held talks with the Government of India which resulted in what is known as the Shillong Accord. The Naga leaders who did not agree with the Shillong accord formed the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and continue to fight for what they call," Naga sovereignty".

Problems of Integration

Much of this historical bloodshed could have been avoided if the new India had lived up to the democratic principles enshrined in its Constitution and respected the rights of the nationalities it had taken within its borders. But in the over-zealous efforts to integrate these people into the "national mainstream", based on the dominant brahminical Aryan culture, much destruction has been done to the indigenous populations.

Culturally, the highly caste ridden, feudal society is totally incompatible with the ethics of North-East cultures which are by and large egalitarian. To make matters even worse, the Indian leaders found it useful to club these ethnic groups with the adivasis (indigenous peoples) of the sub-continent, dubbing them "scheduled tribes". As a result, in the casteist Indian social milieu, indigenous peoples are stigmatized by higher castes.

The languages of the North-East are of the Tibeto- Chinese family rather than the Indo-Aryan or Dravidian. Until the recent Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, none of the Tibeto- Chinese languages were recognized as Indian languages. The predominantly mongoloid features of the people of the North-East is another barrier to cultural assimilation.

Politically dependent, the North East is being economically undermined; the traditional trade routes with South East Asia and Bangladesh have been closed. It was kept out of the Government of India's massive infrastructural development in the first few five-year-plans. Gradually, the region has become the Indian capitalist's hinterland, where local industries have been reduced to nothing and the people are now entirely dependent on goods and businesses owned predominantly by those from the Indo- Gangetic plains. The economic strings of this region are controlled by these, in many cases, unscrupulous traders.

All the states of the North-East are connected to India by the "chicken's neck", a narrow corridor between Bangladesh and Bhutan. At partition, the area was cut off from the nearest port of Chittagong, in what is now Bangladesh, reducing traffic to and from the region to a trickle. The states in the region are largely unconnected to India' vast rail system.

India freely exploits the natural resources of the North-East. Assam produces one-fourth of all the petroleum for India, yet it is processed outside of Assam so the state does not receive the revenues. Manipur is 22% behind the national average for infrastructural development, and the entire North-Eastern region is 30% behind the rest of India.

Observers have pointed out that "...it is clear that in the North East, insurgency and underdevelopment have been closely linked; in such a situation strong-arm tactics will only help to further alienate the people."

The shifting demographic balance due to large-scale immigration from within and outside the country is another source of tension. The indigenous people fear that they will be outnumbered by outsiders in their own land. Laborers from Bihar and Bengal who live under rigidly feudal, casteist socio-economic conditions in their states are ready to do all kinds of menial jobs at much lower wages. As they pour in, more and more local laborers are being edged out of their jobs. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh and Nepal is also percieved as a threat. In Tripura, the indigenous population has been reduced to a mere 28% of the total population of the state because of large scale immigration from then East Pakistan and now Bangladesh.

In Assam, a similar fear of " immigrant invasion" was at the root of a student movement in the early eighties. The student leaders formed a political party called the Assam Gana Parisad (AGP) and contested state elections and won. In 1984, the Assam Accord was signed with the Central Government. However, the provisions of the Accord were never implemented. The failure of the AGP to bring about change in the state of Assam fostered the growth of the armed and overtly seccessionist United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA).

Mizoram

In the Lushai hills of Assam in the early sixties, a famine broke out. A relief team cried out for help from the Government of India. But there was little help. The relief team organized themselves into the Mizo National Front (MNF) and called for an armed struggle, " to liberate Mizoram from Indian colonialiasm." In February 1966, armed militant groups captured the town of Aizawl and took possession of all government offices. It took the Indian army one week to recapture the town. The army responded viciously with air raids. This is the only place in India where the Indian Security Forces actually aerially bombed its own civilian population. The armed forces compelled people to leave their homes and dumped them on the roadside to set up new villages, so that the armed forces would be able to better control them. This devastated the structure of Mizo society. In 1986, the Mizo Accord was signed between the MNF and the Government of India. This accord was identical to the Shilong Accord made with the Nagas earlier. The MNF agreed to work within the Indian Constitution and to renounce violence.

The Government of India's primary interest in the North East was strategic, and so was its response to the problems. A series of repressive laws were passed by the Government of India in order to deal with this uprising. In 1953, the Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous District) Regulation Act was passed. It was applicable to the then Naga Hills and Tuensang districts. It empowered the Governor to impose collective fines, prohibit public meetings and and detain anybody without a warrant.

On 22 May 1958, a mere 12 days after the Budget Session of Parliament was over, the Armed Forces (Assam-Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance was passed. A bill was introduced in the Monsoon session of Parliament that year. Amongst those who cautioned against giving such blanket powers to the Army included the then Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, (Upper House of the Indian Parliament), Mr P N Sapru. In a brief discussion that lasted for three hours in the Lok Sabha and for four hours in the Rajya Sabha, Parliament approved the Armed Forces (Assam- Manipur) Special Powers Act with retrospective from 22 May 1958.

3. THE ACT AND ITS PROVISIONS

Section 1: This section states the name of the Act and the areas to which it extends (Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram).

Section 2: This section sets out the definition of the Act, but leaves much un-defined. Under part (a) in the 1972 version, the armed forces were defined as "the military and Air Force of the Union so operating". In the 1958 version of the Act the definition was of the "military forces and the air forces operating as land forces". In the Lok Sabha Debates which led to the passing of the original Act, Mr Naushir Bharucha commented, "that probably means that the Government very mercifully has not permitted the air forces to shoot or strafe the area ... or to bomb." The Minister of Home Affairs did not confirm this interpretation, but certainly "acting as land forces" should rule out the power to resort to aerial bombardment. Nevertheless, in 1966, the Air Force in Mizoram did resort to aerial bombardment.

Section 2(b) defines a "disturbed area" as any area declared as such under Clause 3 (see discussion below). Section 2(c) states that all other words not defined in the AFSPA have the meanings assigned to them in the Army Act of 1950.

Section 3: This section defines "disturbed area" by stating how an area can be declared disturbed. It grants the power to declare an area disturbed to the Central Government and the Governor of the State, but does not describe the circumstances under which the authority would be justified in making such a declaration. Rather, the AFSPA only requires that such authority 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." The vagueness of this definition was challenged in Indrajit Barua v. State of Assam case. 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, the declaration that an area is disturbed is not subject to judicial review. So in practice, it is only the government's understanding which classifies an area as disturbed. There is no mechanism for the people to challenge this opinion. Strangely, there are acts which define the term more concretely. In the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 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.

The 1972 amendments to the AFSPA extended the power to declare an area disturbed to the Central Government. In the 1958 version of the AFSPA only the state governments had this power. In the 1972 Lok Sabha debates it was argued that extending this power to the Central Government would take away the State's authority. In the 1958 debates the authority and power of the states in applying the AFSPA was a key issue. The Home Minister had argued that the AFSPA broadened states' power because they could call in the military whenever they chose. The 1972 amendment shows that the Central Government is no longer concerned with the state's power. Rather, the Central Government now has the ability to overrule the opinion of a state governor and declare an area disturbed. This happened in Tripura, when the Central Government declared Tripura a disturbed area, over the opposition of the State Government.

In the 1972 Lok Sabha debates, Mr S D Somasundaram pointed out that there was no need to extend this power to the Central Government, since the President had "the power to intervene in a disturbed State at any time" under the Constitution. This point went unheeded and the Central Government retains the power to apply the AFSPA to the areas it wishes in the Northeast.

Section 4: This section sets out the powers granted to the military stationed in a disturbed area. These powers are granted to the commissioned officer, warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer, only a jawan (private) does not have these powers. The Section allows the armed forces personnel to use force for a variety of reasons.

The army can shoot to kill, under the powers of section 4(a), for the commission or suspicion of the commission of the following offenses: acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons, carrying weapons, or carrying anything which is capable of being used as a fire-arm or ammunition. To justify the invocation of this provision, the officer need only be "of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of public order" and only give "such due warning as he may consider necessary".

The army can destroy property under section 4(b) if it is an arms dump, a fortified position or shelter from where armed attacks are made or are suspected of being made, if the structure is used as a training camp, or as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders.

The army can arrest anyone without a warrant under section 4(c) who has committed, is suspected of having committed or of being about to commit, a cognisable offense and use any amount of force "necessary to effect the arrest".

Under section 4(d), the army can enter and search without a warrant to make an arrest or to recover any property, arms, ammunition or explosives which are believed to be unlawfully kept on the premises. This section also allows the use of force necessary for the search.

Section 5: This section states that after the military has arrested someone under the AFSPA, they must hand that person over to the nearest police station with the "least possible delay". There is no definition in the act of what constitutes the least possible delay. Some case-law has established that 4 to 5 days is too long. But since this provision has been interpreted as depending on the specifics circumstances of each case, there is no precise amount of time after which the section is violated. The holding of the arrested person, without review by a magistrate, constitutes arbitrary detention.

Section 6: This section establishes that no legal proceeding can be brought against any member of the armed forces acting under the AFSPA, without the permission of the Central Government. This section leaves the victims of the armed forces abuses without a remedy.

4. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act contravenes both Indian and International law standards. This was exemplified when India presented its second periodic report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1991. Members of the UNHRC asked numerous questions about the validity of the AFSPA, questioning how the AFSPA could be deemed constitutional under Indian law and how it could be justified in light of Article 4 of the ICCPR. The Attorney General of India relied on the sole argument that the AFSPA is a necessary measure to prevent the secession of the North Eastern states. He said that a response to this agitation for secession in the North East had to be done on a "war footing." He argued that the Indian Constitution, in Article 355, made it the duty of the Central Government to protect the states from internal disturbance, and that there is no duty under international law to allow secession.

This reasoning exemplifies the vicious cycle which has been instituted in the North East due to the AFSPA. The use of the AFSPA pushes the demand for more autonomy, giving the peoples of the North East more reason to want to secede from a state which enacts such powers and the agitation which ensues continues to justify the use of the AFSPA from the point of view of the Indian Government.

A) INDIAN LAW

There are several cases pending before the Indian Supreme Court which challenge the constitutionality of the AFSPA. Some of these cases have been pending for over nine years. Since the Delhi High Court found the AFSPA to be constitutional in the case of Indrajit Barua and the Gauhati High court found this decision to be binding in People's Union for Democratic Rights, the only judicial way to repeal the act is for the Supreme Court to declare the AFSPA unconstitutional.

It is extremely surprising that the Delhi High Court found the AFSPA constitutional given the wording and application of the AFSPA. The AFSPA is unconstitutional and should be repealed by the judiciary or the legislature to end army rule in the North East.

Violation of Article 21 - Right to life
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life to all people. It reads, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Judicial interpretation that "procedure established by law means a "fair, just and reasonable law" has been part of Indian jurisprudence since the 1978 case of Maneka Gandhi. This decision overrules the 1950 Gopalan case which had found that any law enacted by Parliament met the requirement of "procedure established by law".

Under section 4(a) of the AFSPA, which grants armed forces personnel the power to shoot to kill, the constitutional right to life is violated. This law is not fair, just or reasonable because it allows the armed forces to use an excessive amount of force.

The offenses under section 4(a) are: "acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or fire-arms, ammunition or explosive substances". None of these offences necessarily involve the use of force. The armed forces are thus allowed to retaliate with powers which are grossly out of proportion with the offence.

Justice requires that the use of force be justified by a need for self-defense and a minimum level of proportionality. As pointed out by the UN Human Rights Commission, since "assembly" is not defined, it could well be a lawful assembly, such as a family gathering, and since "weapon" is not defined it could include a stone. This shows how wide the interpretation of the offences may be, illustrating that the use of force is disproportionate and irrational.

Several incidents show how the Border Security Force (BSF) and army personnel abuse their powers in the North East. In April 1995, a villager in West Tripura was riding near a border outpost when a soldier asked him to stop. The villager did not stop and the soldier shot him dead. Even more grotesque were the killings in Kohima on 5 March 1995. The Rastriya Rifles (National Rifles) mistook the sound of a tyre burst from their own convoy as a bomb attack and began firing indiscriminately in the town. The Assam Rifles and the CRPF who were camped two kilometers away heard the gunshots and also began firing. The firing lasted for more than one hour, resulting in the death of seven innocent civilians, 22 were also seriously injured. Among those killed were two girls aged 3 1/2 and 8 years old. The injured also included 7 minors. Mortars were used even though using mortars in a civilian area is prohibited under army rules.

This atrocity demonstrates the level of tension prevalent in the North East. For a tire burst to be mistaken for a bomb proves that the armed forces are perpetually under stress and live under a state of siege.

In the Indrajit Barua case, the Delhi High Court found that the state has the duty to assure the protection of rights under Article 21 to the largest number of people. Couched in the rhetoric of the need to protect the "greater good", it is clear that the Court did not feel that Article 21 is a fundamental right for the people of Assam. The Court stated, "If to save hundred lives one life is put in peril or if a law ensures and protects the greater social interest then such law will be a wholesome and beneficial law although it may infringe the liberty of some individuals."

This directly contradicts Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees equality before the law. This article guarantees that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." The AFSPA is in place in limited parts of India. Since the people residing in areas declared "disturbed" are denied the protection of the right to life, denied the protections of the Criminal Procedure Code and prohibited from seeking judicial redress, they are also denied equality before the law. Residents of non-disturbed areas enjoy the protections guaranteed under the Constitution, whereas the residents of the Northeast live under virtual army rule. Residents of the rest of the Union of India are not obliged to sacrifice their Constitutional rights in the name of the "greater good".
Protection against arrest and detention - Article 22
Article 22 of the Indian Constitution states that "(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. (2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate." The remaining sections of the Article deal with limits on these first two sections in the case of preventive detention laws. On its face, the AFSPA is not a preventive detention law therefore the safeguards of sections (1) and (2) must be guaranteed to people arrested under the AFSPA.

Section (2) of Article 22 was the subject of much debate during the framing of the Indian Constitution. There was argument over whether the time limit should be specified or whether the words "with the least possible delay" should be used. Dr Amedkar, one of the principal framers of the Indian Constitution argued that "with the least possible delay" would actually result in the person being held for a shorter period of time, whereas "twenty- four hours" would result in the person being held for the maximum time of twenty-four hours. The application of these terms has since shown that a specified time period constitutes a greater safeguard. Under the AFSPA, the use of "least possible delay" language has allowed the security forces to hold people for days and months at a time. A few habeas corpus cases in which the court did find the delay to be excessive are indicative of the abuses which are occurring in practice. It should be noted that habeas corpus cases are only filed for those who have access to lawyers and the court. In all the seven states of the North East only the Guwhati High Court bench in Assam can hear habeas corpus cases. So although in the two following cases the time of delay in handing over the arrested person was found excessive, it can only be imagined what types of abuses occur in the states of Manipur and Nagaland where the people do not have access to the court. In Nungshitombi Devi v. Rishang Keishang, CM Manipur, (1982) 1 GLR 756, the petitioner's husband was arrested by CRPF on 10 January 1981, and was still missing on 22 February 1981. He had been arrested under AFSPA Section 4(c). The court found this delay to have been too long and unjustified, even under Section 5 of the AFSPA. In Civil Liberties Organisation (CLAHRO) v. PL Kukrety, (1988) 2 GLR 137, people arrested in Oinam were held for five days before being handed over to magistrates. The court found this to be an unjustified delay.

In its application, the AFSPA does lead to arbitrary detention. If the AFSPA were defended on the grounds that it is a preventive detention law, it would still violate Article 22 of the Constitution. Preventive detention laws can allow the detention of the arrested person for up to three months. Under 22(4) any detention longer than three months must be reviewed by an Advisory Board. Moreover, under 22(5) the person must be told the grounds of their arrest. Under section 4(c) of the AFSPA a person can be arrested by the armed forces without a warrant and on the mere suspicion that they are going to commit an offence. The armed forces are not obliged to communicate the grounds for the arrest. There is also no advisory board in place to review arrests made under the AFSPA. Since the arrest is without a warrant it violates the preventive detention sections of article 22.

The case of Luithukla v. Rishang Keishing, (1988) 2 GLR 159, a habeas corpus case, exemplifies the total lack of restraint on the armed forces when carrying out arrests. The case was brought to ascertain the whereabouts of a man who had been arrested five years previously by the army. The court found that the man had been detained by the army and that the forces had mistaken their role of "aiding civil power". The court said that the army may not act independently of the district administration. Repeatedly, the Guwahati High Court has told the army to comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), but there are is no enforcement of these rulings.

Army officers have accused High Court judges of weakening military powers in the North East, exemplifying that the armed forces are not interested in complying with civil law standards. Any attempt by the courts to oblige compliance with police procedure is ignored. (see further section on the lack of independence of the judiciary)

In the habeas corpus case of Bacha Bora v. State of Assam, (1991) 2 GLR 119, the petition was denied because a later arrest by the civil police was found to be legal. However, in a discussion of the AFSPA, the court analyzed Section 5 (turn the arrested person over to the nearest magistrate "with least possible delay"). The court did not use Article 22 of the Constitution to find that this should be less than twenty-four hours, but rather said that "least possible delay" is defined by the particular circumstances of each case. In this case, the army had provided no justification for the two week delay, when a police station was nearby, so section 5 was violated. Nevertheless, this leaves open the interpretation that circumstances could justify a delay of 5 days or more.
The Indian Criminal Procedure Code ("CrPC")
The CrPC establishes the procedure police officers are to follow for arrests, searches and seizures, a procedure which the army and other para- military are not trained to follow. Therefore when the armed forces personnel act in aid of civil power, it should be clarified that they may not act with broader power than the police and that these troops must receive specific training in criminal procedure.

In explaining the AFSPA bill in the Lok Sabha in 1958, the Union Home Minister stated that the Act was subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the CrPC. He said "these persons [military personnel] have the authority to act only within the limits that have been prescribed generally in the CrPC or in the Constitution." If this is the case, then why was the AFSPA not drafted to say "use of minimum force" as done in the CrPC? If the government truly means to have the armed forces comply with criminal procedure, than the AFSPA should have a specific clause enunciating this compliance. Further it should also train the armed forces in this procedure.

The CrPC has a section on the maintenance of public order, Chapter X, which provides more safeguards than the AFSPA. Section 129 in that chapter allows for the dispersal of an assembly by use of civil force. The section empowers an Executive Magistrate, officer-in-charge of a police station or any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector to disperse such an assembly. It is interesting to compare this section with the powers the army has to disperse assemblies under section 4(a) of the Act. The CrPC clearly delineates the ranks which can disperse such an assembly, whereas the Act grants the power to use maximum force to even to non commissioned officers. Moreover, the CrPC does not state that force to the extent of causing death can be used to disperse an assembly.

Sections 130 and 131 of the same chapter sets out the conditions under which the armed forces may be called in to disperse an assembly. These two sections have several safeguards which are lacking in the Act. Under section 130, the armed forces officers are to follow the directives of the Magistrate and use as little force as necessary in doing so. Under 131, when no Executive Magistrate can be contacted, the armed forces may disperse the assembly but if it becomes possible to contact an Executive Magistrate at any point, the armed forces must do so. Section 131 only gives the armed forces the power to arrest and confine. Moreover, it is only commissioned or gazetted officers who may give the command to disperse such an assembly, whereas in the AFSPA even non-commissioned officers are given this power. The AFSPA grants wider powers than the CrPC for dispersal of an assembly.

Moreover, dispersal of assemblies under Chapter X of the CrPC is slightly more justifiable than dispersal under Section 4(a) of the AFSPA. Sections 129-131 refer to the unlawful assemblies as ones which "manifestly endanger" public security. Under the AFSPA the assembly is only classified as "unlawful" leaving open the possibility that peaceful assemblies can be dispersed by use of force.

Chapter V of the CrPC sets out the arrest procedure the police are to follow. Section 46 establishes the way in which arrests are to be made. It is only if the person attempts to evade arrest that the police officer may use "all means necessary to effect the arrest." However, sub-section (3) limits this use of force by stipulating that this does not give the officer the right to cause the death of the person, unless they are accused of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment. This power is already too broad. It allows the police to use more force than stipulated in the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (see section on International law below). Yet the AFSPA is even more excessive. Section 4(a) lets the armed forces kill a person who is not suspected of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Under the Indian Penal Code, at Section 302, only murder is punishable with death. Murder is not one of the offenses listed in section 4(a) of the AFSPA. Moreover the 4(a) offences are assembly of five or more persons, the carrying of weapons, ammunition or explosive substances, none of which are punishable with life imprisonment under the Indian Penal Code. Under section 143 of the Penal Code, being a member of an unlawful assembly is punishable with imprisonment of up to six months and/or a fine. Even if the person has joined such unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years and a fine. Moreover, persisting or joining in an unlawful assembly of five or more persons is also punishable with six months imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The same offence committed by someone in a disturbed area under the AFSPA is punishable with death. This again violates the Constitutional right to equality before the law. Different standards of punishment are in place for the same act in different parts of the country, violating the equality standards set out in the Constitution.

Supposedly the military do have instructions on the procedures they are to follow when they act in aid of civil power. In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1991) 2 GLR 1, when the court reviewed the army's powers it referred to two sets of instructions issued to the military when acting in aid of civil power. The first was a 1969 pamphlet issued by the Government of India as guidance for military but it was confidential and the court was not allowed to review it. A 1973 basic book instructions for army acting in aid of civil power was also referred to in the case. In a personal meeting with Justice Raghuvir, former Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court, and the Justice who wrote the opinion in People's Union for Democratic Rights, SAHRDC asked for details on the nature of these instructions. Justice Raghuvir told us that he was only able to see a few pages and that the whole booklet was not available to non-military personnel. He believes that the military keeps these instruction manuals confidential so that it can not be shown that the armed forces fail to comply with their own standards. This is another example of the lack of judicial review and allows the armed forces to remain above the law.
Military's Immunity / Lack of Remedies
The members of the Armed Forces in the whole of the Indian territory are protected from arrest for anything done within the line of official duty by Section 45 of the CrPC. Section 6 of the AFSPA provides them with absolute immunity for all atrocities committed under the AFSPA. A person wishing to file suit against a member of the armed forces for abuses under the AFSPA must first seek the permission of the Central Government.

In a report on the AFSPA to the UN Human Rights Committee in 1991, Nandita Haksar, a lawyer who has often petitioned the Guwahati High Court in cases related to the AFSPA, explains how in practice this leaves the military's victims without a remedy. Firstly, there has not been a single case of any one seeking such permission to file a case in the North East. Given that the armed forces personnel conduct themselves as being above the law and the people are alienated from the state government, it is hardly surprising that no one would approach Delhi for such permission. Secondly, when the armed forces are tried in army courts, the public is not informed of the proceedings and the court martial judgments are not published. In a meeting with the government National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), a representative of SAHRDC was able to discuss cases where BSF and armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir were punished for abuses. Yet, the results of these trials were not published and the NHRC representative stated that it would endanger the lives of the soldiers.

This section of the AFSPA was also reviewed in Indrajit Barua. The High Court justified this provision on the grounds that it prevents the filing of "frivolous claims". The court even said that this provision provides more safeguards, obviously confusing safeguards for the military with safeguards for the victims of the military's abuses.

Instances of human rights abuses by the army have shown that unless there is public accountability there is no incentive for the army to change its conduct. This was exemplified in Burundi when security forces killed 1,000 people in October 1991. Amnesty International reported, "The failure to identify those responsible for human rights violations and bring them to justice has meant that members of the security forces continue to believe that they are above the law and can violate human rights with impunity." Without the transparency of the public accounting, it is impossible to be sure that perpetrators are actually punished.

Habeas corpus cases have been the only remedy available for those arrested under the AFSPA. A habeas corpus case forces the military or police to hand the person over to the court. This gives the arrested person some protection and it is in these cases that legal counsel have been able to make arguments challenging the AFSPA. However, a habeas corpus case will not lead to the repeal of the act nor will it punish particular officers who committed the abuses. Also, only people who have access to lawyers will be able to file such a case.

Section 6 of the AFSPA thus suspends the Constitutional right to file suit. Mr Mahanty raised this crucial argument in the first Lok Sabha debate on the AFSPA in 1958. He said that Section 6 of the AFSPA "immediately takes away, abrogates, pinches, frustrates the right to constitutional remedy which has been given in article 32(1) of the Constitution." This further shows that the AFSPA is more than an emergency provision because it is only in states of emergency that these rights can be constitutionally suspended.

Section 32(1) of the Constitution states that "the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed." In the Constitutional Assembly debates, Dr B R Ambedkar said, "If I was asked to name any particular article of the Constitution as the most important - an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity. I would not refer to any other article except this one (Article 32). It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it."

During the emergency in 1975 the right to file for writs of habeas corpus was suspended as ruled by the Supreme Court in A.D.M. v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521. The Emergency had been declared under Section 359 of the Constitution. This section has now been amended, stating that the fundamental rights of section 20 and 21 cannot be suspended, even in a state of emergency. Therefore, should an emergency be declared today, the right to file habeas corpus on the grounds that the fundamental right to life has been denied should be allowed. Nevertheless, the 1975 case exemplifies the court's deference for the executive, even if it means a total suspension of individual liberty.

In the 1958 Lok Sabha, debate also occured about whether the right to file suit was a guaranteed right under the Constitution. The Speaker said, "Now who is to decide whether a right is one which has been guaranteed under this article? (article 32) The Supreme Court will decide it." Turning to this argument later, the Home Minister pointed out that under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code that the Government's consent was already required before a member of the armed forces could be sued in connection with their duties. This remains the case under both Codes today. Since, as seen above, the Supreme Court so readily defers to the executive and legislative branches, if the legislature does not pause to ask if a provision is constitutional, should the court review it once the legislature has passed it, it will most likely be deemed constitutional.
The Army Act
The 1950 act was a revision of the 1911 Indian Army Act. One of the goals of this revision was "to bridge the gap between the Army and civil laws as far as possible in the matter of punishments of offenses." The High Courts of the country have a limited right to interfere with the court-martial system. Court-martial proceedings do not have to satisfy Article 21 of the Constitution. In chapter five of the Army Act, the members of the services are granted privileges, including immunity from attachments and arrest for debt. The only civil acts committed by members of the army which are not triable by court-martial are murder or rape of a civilian, unless this was done while on active service. This means that soldiers operating under the AFSPA will, if tried at all, be tried by court-martial, leaving no civil law remedy for the victims. Section 6 of the AFSPA only further reinforces the army's immunity.
States of Emergency
The declaration that an area is disturbed essentially amounts to declaring a state of emergency but by-passes the Constitutional safeguards. The point that this bill invokes a state of emergency was raised immediately by Mr Mahanty (Dhenkanal) in the 1958 Lok Sabha debates. He said the Assembly could not proceed if Section 352(1) of the Constitution was not fulfilled. In response, Mr K C Pant, then Home Minister, attempted to argue that the powers granted under the AFSPA do not resemble a state of emergency. He said that in an emergency fundamental rights can be abrogated and that the AFSPA does not abrogate those rights. But under Section 4(a) the right to life is clearly violated. An officer shooting to kill, because he is of the opinion that it is necessary, does not conform, even prima facie, with the Article 21 Constitutional requirement that the right to life cannot be abridged except according to procedure established by law. The Home Minister said the AFSPA powers stem rather from Article 355 of the Constitution, which gives the Central Government authority to protect the States against external aggression.

Dr Krishnaswanmi (Chingleput) also made the argument that the AFSPA was outside the powers granted in the Constitution, since it was declaring a state of emergency without following the Constitutional provisions for such a declaration. He argued that this Bill would take away the State's power by bringing in the military. The Speaker responded that this did not take away the State's power, rather it granted the States more power because it allowed them to decide to "hand over thoroughly, entirely and completely to the Armed Forces". This argument is circular - the Speaker was saying that the States are given more power because they are now able to freely hand over their power. And because this was explained as granting power to the States, no Presidential proclamation was necessary (the proclamation is only made when the State powers are restricted). So the emergency provisions in the Constitution were cleverly by-passed.

In a state of emergency, fundamental rights may be suspended under Article 359, since the 1978 amendment to this article, rights under Articles 20 and 21 may not be suspended. As shown above, the AFSPA results in the suspension of Article 21 right to life, therefore AFSPA is more draconian than emergency rule. Emergency rule can only be declared for a specified period of time, and the President's proclamation of emergency must be reviewed by Parliament. The AFSPA is in place for an indefinite period of time and there is no legislative review.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted in its report of 17 December 1993, that states of emergency tend to be a "fruitful source of arbitrary arrests." In its report of 21 December 1994, the Working Group concluded that preventive detention is "facilitated and aggravated by several factors such as ... exercise of the powers specific to states of emergency without a formal declaration, non-observance of the principle of proportionality between the gravity of the measures taken and the situation concerned, too vague a definition of offenses against State security, and the existence of special or emergency jurisdictions." This describes exactly the situation under the AFSPA. The AFSPA grants state of emergency powers without declaring an emergency as prescribed in the Constitution. The measures taken by the military outweigh the situation in the North East, notably the power to shoot to kill. The offences are not clearly defined, since all of the Section 4 offences are judged subjectively by the military personnel. And the AFSPA is a "special jurisdiction" provision.

B) INTERNATIONAL LAW

Under relevant international human rights and humanitarian law standards there is no justification for such an act as the AFSPA. The AFSPA, by its form and in its application, violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the "UDHR"), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the "ICCPR"), the Convention Against Torture, the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Body of Principles for Protection of All Persons Under any form of Detention, and the UN Principles on Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra- legal and summary executions.

A UDHR argument would just be repetitive with ICCPR so SAHRDC has not done it but the UDHR articles which the AFSPA violates are the following: 1 - Free and Equal Dignity and rights, 2 - Non- discrimination, 3 - Life, liberty, security of person, 5 - no torture, 7 - equality before the law, 8 - effective remedy, 9 - no arbitrary arrest, 17 - property.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR")
India signed the ICCPR in 1978, taking on the responsibility of securing the rights guaranteed by the Covenant to all its citizens. The rights enunciated by the ICCPR are those which must be guaranteed during times of peace by the member states. In times of public emergency, the ICCPR foresees that some rights may have to be suspended. However, the ICCPR remains operative even under such circumstances since certain rights are non- derogable. The AFSPA violates both derogable and non-derogable rights.

This first article of the ICCPR states that all people have the right to self-determination. As discussed previously, the AFSPA is a tool in stifling the self-determination aspirations of the indigenous peoples of the North East.

Article 2 imposes an obligation on the states to ensure that all individuals enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Covenant. This includes an obligation to provide a remedy for those whose rights are violated. When India gave its second periodic report to the UN Human Rights Committee in March 1991, members of the Committee pointed out that the AFSPA violates this right because article 2 foresees more than just a legal system which provides such remedies, but requires that such a system work on the practical level.

Article 4 of the Covenant governs the suspension of some of the Covenant's rights. Derogation of the ICCPR has three conditions. Firstly, it is only "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed" that states may derogate from their obligations under the ICCPR. Also, such derogation must be "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation" and cannot be inconsistent with other international law obligations nor "involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin." The AFSPA has been enacted without such an official proclamation of emergency and goes beyond the requirements of the situation. Moreover, the fact that the AFSPA targets the population of the North East shows that it does discriminate on the basis of social origin. Secondly, there can be no derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18. As discussed below, the AFSPA violates three of these, article 6 guaranteeing the right to life, article 7 prohibiting torture and article 8 prohibiting forced labour. Thirdly, any state which derogates from the ICCPR obligations must inform the other states party to the Covenant. India has not met this obligation as regards the AFSPA.

The AFSPA comes within the purview of article 4 as understood by the Human Rights Committee. The members found that since it "enables the army to supplement ... [the] civil authorities [in] powers of arrest, powers of search" the AFSPA is the equivalent of emergency legislation. Moreover, a committee member stated that the AFSPA had actually created a "continuous state of emergency" since it has been in application since 1958.

The greatest outrage of the AFSPA under both Indian and international law is the violation of the right to life. This comes under Article 6 of the ICCPR, and it is a non-derogable right. This means no situation, or state of emergency, or internal disturbance, can justify the suspension of this right. Committee members insisted on this particular point in regards to the AFSPA. They found that the powers to kill under the Act are simply too broad. As pointed out by a member of the committee, the offences under Section 4(a) for which the soldier may shoot do not threaten the soldier. The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials only foresees the use of deadly force when the officer is threatened with force. Under Section 4(a) of the AFSPA, the officer can shoot when there is an unlawful assembly, not defined as threatening, or when the person has or is suspected of having a weapon. Since "weapon" is defined as anything "capable of being used as a weapon", a committee member pointed out that this could even include a stone, further bringing out the lack of proportionality between the offence and the use of force by the army.

The armed forces in the North East have systematically tortured the people they arrested under the AFSPA. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture and this also is a non-derogable right. Moreover, the prohibition against torture is a "norm of customary law". Under the UDHR, torture is defined as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other person."

During Operation Bluebird, the Assam Rifles committed gross abuses of this right. The Operation was launched in the wake of an attack on an Assam Rifles outpost in Oinam, a village in Manipur. The attack is believed to have been carried out by the NSCN. The armed forces retaliated by perpetuating atrocities on the village people of Oinam. The Amnesty International report found that more than 300 villagers claimed they were beaten, "some torture victims were left for dead ... others were reportedly subjected to other forms of torture including inserting chili powder into sensitive parts of the body, being given electric shocks by means of a hand operated dynamo ... or being buried up to the neck in apparent mock executions." The headman of the village was also tortured and reported, "I was called out and repeatedly interrogated throughout the day ... I was beaten by the officers an jawans ... they also indiscriminately attack[ed] the villagers - ... chili powder dissolved in water [was] rubbed into the nostrils, eyes and soft parts of the body and [officers and jawans] took sadistic pleasure from the cries of pain by the victims."

Under similar circumstances in "Operation Rhino", Rajputana Rifles surrounded the village of Bodhakors on October 4, 1991. An extensive house to house searched was conducted during which women were sexually harassed and men were taken to interrogation camps. They were beaten up and kept without food or water. During this combing operation not a single insurgent was found. The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) noted, "It is very difficult to understand the logic such useless raids, mass torture and interrogations, unless the purpose is taken to be the creation of pure terror for some sinister and ulterior motives."

During Operation Bluebird, the military also forced the villagers of Oinam to work for them and provided them with no compensation. This violates article 8(3) of the ICCPR which prohibits forced labour. The Assam Rifles "rounded up villagers for forced labour for such tasks as porter service, building new army camps, washing clothes and carrying firewood."

Article 9 of the ICCPR guarantees liberty and security of person, and the AFSPA violates all five sub-parts of this right. Sub- part (1) guarantees that "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his Liberty except on such ground and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law." All the residents of a disturbed area are subject to arbitrary arrest. The military can arrest them on mere suspicion and detain them for unspecified amounts of time before handing them over to the nearest magistrate. Sub-part (2) states "Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him." The AFSPA does not require the arresting army officer to inform the person of the reason for their arrest. This is a requirement under Indian criminal procedure, but the military are not trained in this procedure. Sub-part (3) requires that "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time of release." The AFSPA requires less than this since it states that the person should be brought to the nearest police station "with the least possible delay". Moreover, requiring the person to be handed over to the police station does not assure that they will be brought promptly before a judge.

Article 26 of the ICCPR, like article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal protection for all persons before the law. The AFSPA violates this right because the inhabitants of the North East do not have equal protection before the law. They live under a virtual but undeclared state of emergency and are given no remedy for the injustices they suffer at the hands of the military. Inhabitants of the rest of India, with the exception of Punjab and Kashmir are not subject to this law.

In response the UN Human Rights Committee in 1991, the Attorney General from India did not address the specific points of these various ICCPR articles. He justified the AFSPA under Section 355 of the Indian Constitution which makes it the duty of the Union to protect each state from external aggression. He said the AFSPA was necessary given the context of the North East where there is "infiltration of aliens into the territories mingling with the local public, and encouraging them towards this [secession]." He stated that the ICCPR does not encourage secession and governments are not encouraged to promote it. He said the AFSPA is a "temporary measure", not addressing the concern of committee members that the AFSPA has proven to be a longterm provision as it has been in force for over thirty years.
International Customary Law
The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Body of Principles for Protection of All Persons Under any form of Detention, and the UN Principles on Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal and summary executions all form part of international customary law because they were passed by UN General Assembly resolutions. They lend further strength to the conclusion that the AFSPA violates basic human rights standards.
1. The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials was adopted by the UN General Assembly in resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979. This code applies to all security forces stationed in the North East since "law enforcement officials" are defined as all those who exercise police powers, and it can include military officers. The first article requires that, "Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfil the duty imposed upon them by law, by serving the community and by protecting all persons against illegal act, consistent with the high degree of responsibility required by their profession." A high degree of responsibility is sadly lacking in the troops stationed in the North East. As exemplified by the atrocities noted above, the BSF, CRPF and Assam Rifles are not concerned with the requirements of the law enforcement profession, rather they are operating on a "war footing".
  
  The second article of the code requires that, "In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons." As demonstrated above, multiple provisions of the basic human rights standards in the ICCPR are violated under the AFSPA. The AFSPA encourages the military officers to violate human rights because it allows the armed forces to base arrests, searches and seizures on their subjective suspicion. The armed forces know their actions will not be reviewed and that they will not be held accountable for their actions. They have neither the training nor the incentive to comply with this article of the Code.
  
  Under Article 3 of the Code, "Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty." The Attorney General of India tried to convince the UN Human Rights Committee that the use of force under the AFSPA is strictly necessary and is "squarely within the requirements of Article 3 [of the Code]." However, this argument ignores the sub-sections of Article 3 which stipulate that "(a) This provision emphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials should be exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may be authorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, no force going beyond that may be used." This provision aims at establishing proportionality between the use of force by an officer and the use of force by an offender. Under 4(a) of the AFSPA, the military personnel can use force against people who are not presenting any force. Under 4(c) they can use any amount of force necessary to arrest someone who is suspected of having committed, or being about to commit, an offence. Under 4(d), this same excessive use of force can be justified in entering and searching premises without a warrant.
  
  Sub-section (c) of the code further clarifies that "in general, firearms should not be used except when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender." When armed forces fire upon an unlawful assembly under Section 4(a) they are violating this basic provision. Moreover, the fact that the armed forces have begun firing into crowds and lob mortar shells in the middle of a town in the North East proves they are not interested in "less extreme measures".
  
  Under the Code, the armed forces have no grounds on which to justify their broad powers in the North East. Article 5 of the code reads, "No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior orders or exceptional circumstances such as state of war or a threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (emphasis added) This sweeps aside all the arguments made in the Lok Sabha to justify the original passage of the AFSPA, as well as the Attorney General's arguments before the UN Committee. Even if the North East is a "disturbed area" there is no justification for the human rights abuses being carried out by the military in the region.
2. The Body of Principles on Detention or Imprisonment was passed by UN General Assembly resolution no. 43/173, on 9 December 1988. This body of principles applies to all persons under any form of detention. It further strengthens several of the points raised under both Indian and international law.
  
  Principle 10 states that "Anyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time of his arrest of the reason for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of the charges against him." The armed forces are not obliged to provide this information under the AFSPA. Moreover, under principle 14, "A person who does not adequately understand or speak the language used by the authorities responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment is entitled to receive [information] promptly in a language which he understands". Since the armed forces stationed in the North East are foreign to the region they are unable to comply with this principle. Under principle 32 the right to habeas corpus must be absolutely guaranteed.
3. The Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions adopted by Economic and Social Council also offer guidance for the use of force. Principle 3 says, "Governments shall prohibit orders from superior officers or public authorities authorizing or inciting other person to carry out any such extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions. All persons shall have the right and the duty to defy such orders. Training of law enforcement officials shall emphasize the above provisions." The armed forces operating in the North East should therefore not follow the excessive power to shoot to kill granted in the AFSPA.
International Humanitarian Law
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 along with the two optional protocols, constitute the body of international humanitarian law. These provisions are suited to human rights protection in times of armed conflict. Under these conventions the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is given access to all international conflicts. In non-international armed conflicts, the ICRC can only offer its services.

The ICRC's mandate in the context of non-international armed struggle is based on Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions. However, India has not signed either protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Nevertheless, the ICRC can offer its services in such a conflict based on Article 3, paragraph 2, common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 ("an impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict"). When the ICRC offers its services in such a situation, a state does not have to accept them, or consider it an interference in its internal affairs. However, "in situations of internal disturbance, the rules of international humanitarian law can only be invoked by analogy."

C) COMPARATIVE LAW STANDARDS
The British armed forces presence in Northern Ireland is an apt comparison to the Indian military presence in the North East. The British carry out arrests under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act or the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. When detainees were held for seven days without charge the European Court of Human Rights found this to be in violation of the European Human Rights Covenant.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The Supreme Court of India reached a low for its lack of enforcement of fundamental rights in the Jabalpur case of 1975. The country was in a state of emergency and the high courts had concluded that although the executive could restrict certain rights, people could still file habeas corpus claims. The Supreme Court rejected this conclusion and said the high court judges had substituted their suspicion of the executive for "frank and unreserved acception of the proclamation of emergency." Noted Legal luminary, H M Seervai notes that this shows the lack of judicial detachment. Indeed, it exemplifies a deference to the executive which leaves the people with no enforcement of their constitutional rights. Jabalpur has since been deemed an incorrect decision, but it remains an apt example of the judiciary's submission to the executive.

The Supreme Court has avoided a Constitutional review for over 9 years, the amount of time the principal case has been pending. The Court is not displaying any judicial activism on this Act. The Lok Sabha in the 1958 debate acknowledged that if the AFSPA were unconstitutional, it would be for the Supreme Court to determine. The deference of the Delhi High Court to the legislature in the Indrajit case also demonstrates a lack of judicial independence.

The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary was adopted by the seventh UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and was also adopted by the UN General Assembly. Principle 2 of this document says, "The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressure, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason." The Indian judicial system is not subject to direct interference. It seems to function independently, but under the surface it is possible to discern indirect pressure. For example, the practice of appointing retired judges to commissions may well influence judges while they are on the bench. There may not be direct pressure to render decisions favorable to the executive, but certainly a judge who has "towed the government line" is more likely to be appointed by that same government to a position of prominence upon retirement.

Moreover, there is an absence of creative legal thinking. When the Guwahati High Court was presented with international law argument in People's Union for Democratic Rights, the court ignored it. Justice Raghuvir said in a personal interview that the court could not use international law. If the government has signed an international convention like the ICCPR which requires the government to guarantee rights to its citizens, how can these be enforced if the judiciary does not turn to the text of the convention in its rendering of decisions? The courts are not turning to the spirit of the law which guarantees the fundamental right to life to all people and as a result violations of human rights go unchecked.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence and Impartiality of the Judiciary, Jurors and Assessors and the Independence of Lawyers, Mr Param Cumaraswamy, stated in the 51st Session of the Commission on Human Rights on 10 February 1995, at the United Nations in Geneva that," The power of judicial review is vital for the protection of the rule of law." He also quoted from Mr L M Singhvi's 1985 report that "the strength of legal institutions is a form of insurance for the rule of law and for the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms and for preventing the denial and miscarriage of justice."

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

The only way to guarantee that the human rights abuses perpetrated by the armed forces in the North East cease is to both repeal the AFSPA and remove the military from playing a civil role in the area. Indeed with 50% of the military forces in India acting in a domestic role, through internal security duties, there is a serious question as to whether the civil authority's role is being usurped. As long as the local police are not relied on they will not be able to assume their proper role in law enforcement. The continued presence of the military forces prevents the police force from carrying out its functions. This also perpetuates the justification for the AFSPA.

Among the recommendations made by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, from 1994 was the statement that "Governments which have been maintaining states of emergency in force for many years should lift them, limit their effects or review the custodial measures that affect many persons, and in particular should apply the principle of proportionality rigorously."

The National Human Rights Commission is now reviewing the AFSPA. Hopefully, the NHRC will find that the AFSPA is unconstitutional and will submit this finding to the Supreme Court to influence its review of the pending cases. However, the NHRC has a very limited role. In past cases, the Supreme Court has not welcomed such intervention by the NHRC. This was evident when the NHRC attempted to intervene in the hearing against the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).

If the AFSPA is not repealed, it must at a bare minimum comply with international law and Indian law standards. This means the powers to shoot to kill under section 4(a) must be unequivocally revoked. Arrests must be made with warrants and no force should be allowed in the search and seizure procedures. Section 5 should clearly state that persons arrested under the Act are to be handed over to the police within twenty-four hours. Section 6 should be completely repealed so that individuals who suffer abuses at the hands of the security forces may prosecute their abusers.

Moreover, the definition of key phrases, especially "disturbed area" must be clarified. The declaration that an area is disturbed should not be left to the subjective opinion of the Central or State Government. It should have an objective standard which is judicially reviewable. Moreover, the declaration that an area is disturbed should be for a specified amount of time, no longer than six months. Such a declaration should not persist without legislative review.

Armed forces should not be allowed to arrest or carry out any procedure on suspicion alone. All their actions should have an objective basis so that they are judicially reviewable. This will also assist those who file suit against the security forces.

All personnel acting in a law enforcement capacity should be trained according to the UN Code of Conduct for law enforcement personnel. The instructions and training given to the armed forces should be available to the public. Complete transparency should be established so that a public accountability is rendered possible.

Having the armed forces comply with the Indian CrPC would also be a bare minimum. The CrPC itself does not fully comply with international human rights standards, so making the AFSPA comply on its face with the CrPC provisions for the use of minimal force, arrest, search and seizure would only be a rudimentary step in reducing the abuses committed under the AFSPA.

If the Indian Government truly believes that the only way to handle the governance of the North Eastern states is through force, then it must allow the ICRC to intervene. This can only have a calming influence. Acceptance of ICRC services would demonstrate that the fighting parties want to bring an end to the violence. The ICRC's involvement could help protect the residents of the North East who are currently trapped in the middle between insurgents and the military.

Top / About SAHRDC / Action Alerts / Human Rights Features / Online Resource Centre / Publications / Home

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/resources/armed_forces.htm

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*	This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.(October 2010)

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), was passed on September 11, 1958, by the Parliament of India.[1] It conferred special powers upon armed forces in what the act calls "disturbed areas" in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,Nagaland and Tripura. It was later extended to Jammu and Kashmir as The Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 in July 1990.[2]

[hide]

[edit]The Act

The Articles in the Constitution of India empower state governments to declare a state of emergency due to one or more of the following reasons:

Failure of the administration and the local police to tackle local issues.
Return of (central) security forces leads to return of miscreants/erosion of the "peace dividend".
The scale of unrest or instability in the state is too large for local forces to handle.

In such cases, it is the prerogative of the state government to call for central help. In most cases, for example during elections, when the local police may be stretched too thin to simultaneously handle day-to-day tasks, the central government obliges by sending in the CRPF. Continued unrest, like in the cases of militancy and insurgence, and especially when borders are threatened, are the armed forces resorted to.[3]

By Act 7 of 1972, this power to declare areas as being disturbed was extended to the central government. [4]

In a civilian setting, soldiers have no legal tender, and are still bound to the same command chain as they would be in a war theater. Neither the soldiers nor their superiors have any training in civilian law or policing procedures. This is where and why the AFSPA comes to bear - to legitimize the presence and acts of armed forces in emergency situations which have been deemed war-like by local leaders which led to the armed forces' presence in the first place.[3][5]

[edit]Constitutionality and other issues

According to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), in an area that is proclaimed as "disturbed", an officer of the armed forces has powers to:

"Fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law" against "assembly of five or more persons" or possession of deadly weapons.
To arrest without a warrant and with the use of "necessary" force anyone who has committed certain offenses or is suspected of having done so
To enter and search any premise in order to make such arrests.

It gives Army officers legal immunity for their actions. There can be no prosecution, suit or any other legal proceeding against anyone acting under that law. For declaring an area as a 'disturbed area' there must be a grave situation of law and order on the basis of which Governor/Administrator can form opinion that an area is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that use of Armed Forces in aid of civil power is necessary .[6]

The Act has been employed in the Indian administrated state of Jammu and Kashmir since 1990.[2] It was withdrawn by the Manipur government in some of the constituencies in August 2004 in spite of the Central government not favouring withdrawal of the act.

In December 2006, responding to what he said were 'legitimate' grievances of the people of Manipur, Prime Minister Manmohan Singhdeclared that the Act would be amended to ensure it was 'humane' on the basis of the Jeevan Reddy Commission's report, which is believed to have recommended the Act's repeal.[7]

Violence has increased in the past two decades since enforcement of the Act.[8] The state has created a "Gallantry Awards" pool for the arms forces which are awarded for elimination of insurgencies and conduction of operations. The term 'encounters' is used by the security forces to describe confrontations where it is deemed appropriate, under the provisions of the act, to employ violence.[8]

Protests began in Kashmir valley on Sep 10, 2010, on the occasion of Eid and turned violent on Sep 11, the anniversary of the controversial act. Indian Goverenment is considering partial withdrawal of the act.

[edit]The Jeevan Reddy Commission

In 2004, in the wake of intense agitation [9] that was launched by several civil society groups following the death of Thangjam Manorama, while in the custody of the Assam Rifles and the indefinite fast undertaken by Irom Sharmila, Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil visited Manipur and reviewed the situation with the concerned state authorities. In the same year, Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh assured activists that the central government would consider their demand sympathetically.

The central government accordingly set up a five-member committee under the Chairmanship of Justice B P Jeevan Reddy, former judge of the Supreme Court. The panel was given the mandate of "review[ing] the provisions of AFSPA and advis[ing] the Government of India whether (a) to amend the provisions of the Act to bring them in consonance with the obligations of the government towards protection of human rights; or (b) to replace the Act by a more humane Act."

The Reddy committee submitted its recommendations on June 6, 2005. However, the government failed to take any concrete action on the recommendations even after almost a year and a half. The then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee had rejected the withdrawal or significant dilution of the Act on the grounds that "it is not possible for the armed forces to function" in "disturbed areas" without such powers.[citation needed]

The 147-page report recommends, "The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, should be repealed." During the course of its work, the committee members met several individuals, organisations, parties, institutions and NGOs, which resulted in the report stating that "the Act, for whatever reason, has become a symbol of oppression, an object of hate and an instrument of discrimination and high handedness." The report clearly stated that "It is highly desirable and advisable to repeal the Act altogether, without of course, losing sight of the overwhelming desire of an overwhelming majority of the [North East] region that the Army should remain (though the Act should go)."[citation needed]

But activists say the Reddy panel despite its recommendation for the 'repeal of the Act' has nothing substantial for the people. The report recommends the incorporation of AFSPA in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which will be operable all over India.[citation needed]

[edit]Non-state views and commentary

[edit]United Nations view

When India presented its second periodic report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1991, members of the UNHRC asked numerous questions about the validity of the AFSPA. They questioned the constitutionality of the AFSPA under Indian law and asked how it could be justified in light of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR. On 23 March 2009, UN Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay asked India to repeal the AFSPA. She termed the law as "dated and colonial-era law that breach contemporary international human rights standards."[10]

The Attorney General of India responded that the AFSPA is a necessary measure to prevent the secession of the North Eastern states.[citation needed] He said that a response to this agitation for secession in the North East had to be done on a "war footing."[citation needed] He argued that the Indian Constitution, in Article 355, made it the duty of the Central Government to protect the states from internal disturbance, and that there is no duty under international law to allow secession.[citation needed]

[edit]Non-governmental organizations' analysis

The act has been criticized by Human Rights Watch as a "tool of state abuse, oppression and discrimination".[11]

The South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre argues that the governments' call for increased force is part of the problem.[12]

"This reasoning exemplifies the vicious cycle which has been instituted in the North East due to the AFSPA. The use of the AFSPA pushes the demand for more autonomy, giving the people of the North East more reason to want to secede from a state which enacts such powers and the agitation which ensues continues to justify the use of the AFSPA from the point of view of the Indian Government." - The South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre [13]

A report by the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis points to multiple occurrences of violence by security forces against civilians in Manipur since the passage of the Act.[14] The report states that residents believe that the provision for immunity of security forces urge them to act more brutally.[14] The article, however, goes on to say that repeal or withering away of the act will encourage insurgency.

[15] In addition to this, there have been claims of disappearances by the police or the army in Kashmir by several human rights organizations.[16][17]

A soldier guards the roadside checkpoint outside Srinagar International Airport in January 2009.

Many human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch(HRW) have condemned human rights abuses in Kashmir by Indians such as "extra-judicial executions", "disappearances", and torture;[18] the "Armed Forces Special Powers Act", which "provides impunity for human rights abuses and fuels cycles of violence. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) grants the military wide powers of arrest, the right to shoot to kill, and to occupy or destroy property in counterinsurgency operations. Indian officials claim that troops need such powers because the army is only deployed when national security is at serious risk from armed combatants. Such circumstances, they say, call for extraordinary measures." Human rights organizations have also asked Indian government to repeal[19] the Public Safety Act, since "a detainee may be held in administrative detention for a maximum of two years without a court order.".[20]

The act has been cricised by many non governmental organisations and human rights activists. In J&K only, hundreds of people have been killed by security forces. Many cases of fake killings, binded labors, rapes and other atrocities have come in light.

Acticists who are working in J&K for peace and human rights include names of Madhu Kishwar, Ashima Kaul, Ram Jethmalani, Faisal Khan, Ravi Nitesh, Swami Agnivesh, Dr. sandeep Pandey and many others. They all accept that people to people communication and development of new avenues are the only way for peace, however laws like AFSPA are continuously violating human rights issues there.

[edit]United States leaked diplomatic cables

The Wikileaks diplomatic cables have recently disclosed that Indian government employees agree to acts of human rights violations on part of the Indian armed forces and various paramilitary forces deployed in the north east parts of India especially Manipur. The violations have been carried out under the cover of this very act. Governor S.S. Sidhu admitted to the American Consul General in Kolkata, Henry Jardine, that theAssam Rifles in particular are perpetrators of violations in Manipur which the very same cables described as a state that appeared more of a colony and less of an Indian state.[21][22]

Earlier leaks had also stated that International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had reported to the United States diplomats in Delhi about the grave human rights situation in Kashmir which included the use of electrocution, beatings and sexual humiliation against hundreds of detainees. Kashmir is currently adminsitered under this very act.[23]