Heightened State of Denial

For six years, Ms. Irom Sharmila Chanu, who is from the northeastern Indian state of Manipur, has been on a hunger strike in protest against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, or AFSPA. In October 2006, she moved her protest from Manipur to the capital, New Delhi after being released from a year-long judicial custody by the Manipur state government. In New Delhi, she was promptly detained by the police and forcibly hospitalised at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). 

She is currently being force-fed through a nasal tube, and is unable to move, or talk or meet with people freely. 

First arrested by the Manipur police in November 2000 on charges of ‘attempting suicide’, under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Ms. Sharmila has refused food or water since. Since then, the cycle of detention has continued – she is sent to judicial custody, released after a year (the maximum sentence under Section 309), and then rearrested the next day. 

Her actions were sparked by the Malom massacre of 2 November 2000, in which the Assam Rifles shot dead ten people at a bus stop near Imphal on suspicion of being insurgents. The Assam Rifles are officered by the Indian Army and operate under the administrative control of the Indian Home Ministry. The November 2000 massacre was one of many such incidents that have resulted from the application of the AFSPA. Regarded by the Indian Government as an important piece of legislation in its attempts to control insurgency, the act accords armed forces personnel unmitigated control measures in declared ‘disturbed areas’. Manipur was declared a “disturbed area” by the Indian central government in 1980. Certain parts of the state have been declared “disturbed” since 1958. 

AFSPA powers - including shooting to kill, searching property without the safeguards available in ordinary criminal law and arbitrary detention - are used to ‘maintain public order’ based on the ‘suspicion’ of insurgent activity. Furthermore, central government permission is required for the prosecution of any personnel, virtually granting them complete immunity from prosecution. There has been no public record of prosecution, if any, of personnel responsible for human rights violation. 

The report of the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee constituted by the Government of India to review the AFSPA, was completed on 6 June 2005. But true to form, the government has yet to make the report public, let alone initiate a public debate or a parliamentary discussion on the matter. Were it not for the unofficial disclosure in the media on 8 October 2006, the conclusions of the committee would have still been unknown. 

The committee recommends unambiguously that the Act be repealed. Not only does it find the act “too sketchy, too bald and quite inadequate in several particulars”, it also asserts that it has “become a symbol of oppression, an object of hate and an instrument of discrimination and high-handedness”. Further, the committee holds that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (ULPA), applicable to the whole country, provides adequate powers to the armed forces to combat insurgency, thereby rendering the AFSPA redundant. 

Under Section 4(a) of the AFSPA, the right to life is clearly violated. An armed forces officer is empowered to shoot to kill, based on his subjective opinion of its necessity, which is in violation of the right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, during the hearing of India’s Third Periodic Report under the ICCPR, also called for the repeal of AFSPA. India has stated that the act was passed when the country was faced with an acute law and order situation on account of insurgent activities in its border areas. The UN Human Rights Committee concluded that in keeping these areas as “disturbed”, the Government of India was “in effect using emergency powers without resorting to article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant” – i.e. substantiating and justifying its derogation from the ICCPR. 

It is imperative that Indian government repeal the AFSPA. There is also a wider call for increased accountability for human rights abuses in India. Furthermore, there is a specific need for the cycle of impunity to be countered with the establishment of a regime of accountability in all ‘disturbed areas’ under the AFSPA, founded on the rule of law. With due process and safeguards in place, India would be taking a step toward re-establishing public confidence in the armed forces and the executive.  

Meanwhile, Irom Sharmila’s peaceful protest goes unheard in the corridors of power. As with other civic protests in the state, this too has failed to evoke a response despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s assurance to the people of Manipur that his government “will do something”. It is precisely this contemptuous attitude in the face of suffering which demeans the world’s largest democracy. 

The AFSPA has come to represent the arrogance of the Indian State toward its people, creating an environment conducive to impunity. If India is to maintain and enhance its credibility in the eyes of its citizens and in the international community, it can no longer ignore the voice of Irom Sharmila and other protestors. New Delhi needs to listen in.

 Human Rights Features