The AFSPA Debate: Who Will Bite the Bullet?

Author: TWI

Why does the Army insist on continuing in the hinterland when none of the stakeholders want them? The politicians are branding the Army as unreasonable to oppose the revocation of AFSPA. The Police want to go it alone. Why is the Army over-staying the welcome? With a few years of relative peace behind us, it is time for tough decisions. The Army has the capability to handle any surge in terrorism at a later stage. The Army owes it to its martyrs that its noble intentions are not branded as vested interests and it is not painted as a villain in the politics of the Valley.

Watching ‘The Big Fight’, a debate on television where the topic was ‘Is it time for Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to be revoked?’ I couldn’t help bemoan the disinformation that has discredited this enabling provision that allows the Army to be called in to handle situations of unrest, tackle Pakistan backed terrorists and generally save the country an embarrassment. It appears to be increasingly representative of the ills faced by Kashmiris.

In his final comments at the debate, Mr Mani Shankar Ayer put the blame squarely on the Army for failing to reach out to the public with the details of prosecution of those in uniform who had over-stepped and hence punished. ‘‘The Army did a very bad job…”, he lamented. He also blamed the Security Forces for targeting innocents and causing avoidable animosity. Of course, the Government that has placed the Army in this quagmire has no accountability. This comes close on the heels of a statement from his fellow Congress-man, Finance Minister, Mr P Chidambaram, who expressed his frustration at the implacability of successive Army Chiefs who have opposed revocation of AFSPA so long as the Army is committed. It appears that the Government wants to distance itself from the debate and put the Army in a spot. A politician from the ruling National Conference also opined that the revocation of AFSPA from selected areas was a panacea for all ills in Kashmir. Never mind the corruption and mis-governance.

There were the Faujis amongst the spectators who made informed observations. But an Army-man is expected to be biased in favour of AFSPA and it is uncertain if they made an appreciable dent. While it is expected that the provisions and necessity of AFSPA needs no elaboration, why is it that the Army finds itself at the wrong end of the stick? There are several questions that solicit answers.

Clearly, the Army requires AFSPA as an enabling provision to function amongst the population in a police-like role. Terrorists will find a safe haven in any area where the threat of operations by the Army is low or missing. So, there cannot be partial revocation of AFSPA as it will undermine the Army’s efforts in other areas. Asking for revocation from areas where the Army is anyway not deployed begs the question what inconvenience is being caused by AFSPA if the Army is not present? Where is the danger of misuse? The NC spokesperson on television appeared to convey that AFSPA is like the Sword of Damocles, the threat of the Army calling-on, even if it hasn’t in years, to him seems very real and hence the law must be repealed from Srinagar. The only time in recent years when the Army entered downtown was to save the day for an ungrateful National Conference in 2010.

Let’s for a moment consider the common man’s interpretation of AFSPA. In Kashmir, it is synonymous with being frisked, being asked to prove one’s identity and the inconvenience of Cordon and Search operations. For the uninitiated, especially the uninformed youth in the mainland, it is a provision that allows men in uniform to rape with impunity and kill at will. If that be the substance of the most trusted and professional institution of Independent India, the country stands doomed. The perception, therefore, is as fanciful as Harry Potter’s various adventures. The Act has no provision to protect criminals and 106 Army personnel have been punished by Court Martial while 97% of the 1500 or so charges levelled against Army personnel have been proved to be motivated and frivolous. The Army now operates with the police in populated areas, more from a fear of being framed in false charges. The presence of the police ensures that the real story is known and a false FIR, hopefully, is thus, obviated.

Another annoying issue is the equating of ‘Security Forces’ with the Army. The Army is not synonymous with the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police Force or the Jammu and Kashmir Police. Check out Youtube. Any video with the caption ‘Atrocities of Indian Army’ will reveal personnel from the three agencies mentioned. That the CRPF, despite operating in populated areas, insists on wearing camouflage fatigues belies logic and is perhaps the reason for this misunderstanding. The Army must delink itself from the phrase ‘Security Forces’ and insist on being referred to as the ‘Armed Forces’ which also encompasses the Air force and Navy. The term ‘Army and Security Forces’ must be used when the Army operates with other agencies.

AFSPA has evolved into a symbolic representation of Indian oppression. This evolution is motivated. That the Army is being targeted, is testimony to the sense of the political class to disown or exploit the presence of the Army to suit their ends by modulating public opinion. The sufferings of the common Kashmiri today belong in mixed measure to the Police and the terrorists. Of course, the State Government owns the Police and so there’s no point in castigating it.

There’s a lot the Army must consider.

First, it is deployed because it was called in. But why does it stay on when all elements, the State Government, the State Police, sections of the population (not to mention the separatists) appear convinced that the situation is under control. The Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir has repeatedly expressed his exasperation at the intransigence of the Army and Mr P Chidambaram, the Union Finance Minister, as mentioned earlier, has taken up the clarion call and labelled the previous and present Chiefs of the Army as obstinate in the face of reason. The Director General of Jammu and Kashmir Police, Mr Ashok Prasad, has backed the capacity of his force to go it alone. Also, he is a proponent of converting ‘a security issue into an engineering issue’ by enhancing the Anti-Infiltration Obstacle System to an all-weather fence that will withstand the vagaries of heavy snow, implying perhaps, that if the Army concentrated on containing the influx of terrorists at the Line of Control, the Army would not be required in the hinterland.

Second, the Army is being painted as the devil and allowing itself to be portrayed as a symbol of Indian subjugation. Now, with the views of the Army amply advertised, any revocation or amendment of AFSPA is a victory over an Army with vested interests. It will be projected as a triumph of the civil population, of the State government and of the Centre. It will be the vote-harnessing issue in the run up to the elections in 2014 and the Army will have overstayed its welcome by insisting on being part of a final conflict resolution when it has achieved what the military is meant to in cases of internal strife, that is: bring violence down to acceptable levels so that political negotiations are held from a perspective favourable to the State. The Army can’t assume the mantle of integrating Kashmir with India unless it has an explicit political mandate, which apparently it doesn’t.

The Army’s contention is that with the withdrawal of the ISAF from Afghanistan, the situation in the Valley will take a turn for the worse. But will it? And does it affect only the Army? What are the repercussions that this Army can’t handle? Why is the Army the only ones concerned? Do they have vested interests? The Army figures of infiltration and the number of terrorists on either side of the LC have been openly debunked by all other intelligence agencies.

Third, the Army currently makes up for the shortcomings in the Police force. Not the best reason why the Army should continue. The present synergy is one-sided and biased in favour of the Police, ask any Commanding Officer. The Police do not miss a chance to draw unwanted attention to the Army and the media know which side of the bread is buttered. Dismissing this as ‘an inevitable grey zone in this difficult phase of Counter Insurgency’ is misleading because it is of our own making.

Fourth, the Army’s passionate connection with the Kashmir Valley is understandable, having sacrificed so much in blood and effort. It will be a massive let-down if at the end of it, the Army emerges the villain. And that narrative seems to be unravelling in front of us. What prevents us from declaring a moratorium on operations, hand them completely over to the Police? They feel they can do it, so let them. Isn’t self-sufficiency of the police a critical milestone in a Counter-Insurgency effort? Why do we insist on staying-on when the political powers feel that we have accomplished our bit? There can be no thought of deployment by the Army without AFSPA. So, if AFSPA must go, so must the Army.

Fifth, why does the Army play into the hands of the Police as was evident in the role forced on them during the curfew following Afzal Guru’s execution? The Army was deployed on the roads in a police role as first responders while the Police was in reserve. And since the deployment was without an official requisition, the orders were to withdraw in case confronted by a mob. The police would then handle the mob. Indeed, a unique and confounding case of role-reversal that induces ambiguity at the lowest level, the level where clarity is most required. The Police gained in stature while the Army’s standing amongst the locals was compromised. If the Army continues this policy of premature deployment, irrespective of how critical the police will have us believe it is, the Army would have squandered the goodwill it gained in 2010. The pressure of personal equations with the Police officials must not drive professional engagements.

Having accomplished so much in the Valley the Army appears to be losing the grip in the hinterland and no longer drives how the situation pans out. Circumstances that should not concern it, un-nerve the hierarchy.

Why does it allow itself to be exploited and reviled so? Is it because no one in its hierarchy wants to bite the bullet?