In recent days there has been immense discussion across various forums over the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). It was commented upon by the Supreme Court and recently by the Chief Minister of J and K, Mehbooba Mufti, who stated that it could be considered for withdrawal in places and for limited periods. Comments against it have also come from former Union Minister of Home, Chidambaram. His anger against the army is well understood, as it refused to toe his line and be involved with Maoist insurgency, during his tenure as the home minister, a grudge he possibly still bears.

No right thinking military leader would like to be involved in battling his own nationals, in an insurgency environment, no matter how misguided the youth may be. He is trained and tasked to ensure defence of the nation against a recognizable enemy. It is only when the environment in a particular area goes beyond the control of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and the writ of the government ceases to exist, does the army steps in. It is the government which decides and approves the employment of the army. In simple terms, desperate situations call for extreme measures.

Once accepted, then the army considers its pattern of deployment and employment. Matters military are best handled by them alone. Subsequently, it is upto the polity to consider when the situation is normal or near normal, which can now be controlled by the CAPF and the army withdrawn. This has been done in Tripura and earlier in Punjab. In reverse in Meghalaya in Nov 15, the full bench of the State High Court asked the centre to consider enforcing AFSPA in the Garo Hills to help the state restore law and order.

The reason why AFSPA needs to be enforced is to enable the army to function with some freedom to reverse a situation beyond control. By this it implies that if the force was to seek sanction of a magistrate for every search or function in a similar manner as the local police does, then its effectiveness is hampered and seriously undermined. While the employment of such an act does impinge on some liberties, it has been imposed for the betterment of society as a whole, as the society at large is threatened by the grave situation. Hence the operations which it launches to regain control is also beyond the normal, necessitating such an act.

An issue which is ignored is that AFSPA is neither a military run Government, nor is it invoked by the military. It is basically to enable it to function without interference. It also does not imply that political solutions to end the crises cannot proceed simultaneously. The army while operating brings the situation under control to enable the polity to find a justifiable solution to terminate the crises. Thus the army and the government need to work hand in glove. Involving the army in such operations leads to major disruptions within itself. Apart from over extending and reducing peace tenures, it compels them to change their training and tactics, to deal with a different environment and operation.

The army is the last resort of national power to regain control of an adverse situation. Nothing beyond the army is available to the nation. Hence the army cannot be allowed to fail. Criticizing the army is easy, as it never answers back. It is trained to perform in silence and the results are for the nation to witness. Only the veteran community and well-wishers can raise their voice against those who do not understand the concept of its employment. Each time voices are raised without understanding its reasons for employment, it affects the morale of the forces employed, who are working to ensure normalcy.

Another aspect which the pseudo- intellectuals fail to note is that it is only the Indian army, that fights insurgency, even foreign trained and supported, with its hands tied behind its backs. It has never used weapons of destruction, only small arms. On the other hand, Pakistan, employs air power and artillery in its battle with terrorists, without caring for civilian casualties, while limiting its own. Myanmar, Israel, Turkey, US in Afghanistan and countries in West Asia and Africa follow the Pakistani model.

In dealing with militancy, especially when both sides are well armed and militants unconcerned about collateral damage, there are likely to be civilian casualties. The army has strict rules of engagement and in addition, there are provisions within AFSPA wherein those erring can be prosecuted and have been. As per records available, there were over 1500 cases of human rights abuses reported against the military since 1990 in Kashmir alone. Investigations revealed over 1400 cases were false. Where it was proved, 104 military personnel including 35 officers have been punished in over 90 cases.

The drawback of amending AFSPA drastically or repelling it and continuing with army deployment would compel it to conduct operations on similar lines as the CAPF, as they would aim to protect their action rather than ensure elimination of militants. The lifting of the act in any area should be a political decision, with the rider that if lifted, the army returns to barracks and responsibility rests with the CAPF and the state police.

The last resort of national power, the army, should be complemented for its professionalism in ensuring that the faith which the nation reposes on it, is justified. Errors on the part of its officers and men should be harshly dealt with under military law (where justice is faster and more stringent), while ensuring that false claims, which is the norm in such areas, where public support is initially largely in favour of militants, are ignored. Ultimately, a request for arm chair pseudo- intellectuals, please let a professional force conduct its task. Do not criticize it only because it is an easy target. It cannot respond, but its veterans and well- wishers form a strong enough community to respond on its behalf.

Courtesy: http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/necessity-of-afspa/