Are they against independent and impartial investigations? Photo courtesy Faisal Khan. In short, the debate over AFSPA, ever since it was invoked in in Manipur and then extended to Jammu and Kashmir in by Parliament, has always revolved around the core question: Which should prevail — national security and integrity or individual rights? Under these extra powers, the army officers, junior commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers all ranks except jawans have the power to shoot, or order to shoot, to kill if they are "of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of public order.
They can destroy any property if it is an arms dump, a fortified position or a 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. They can arrest anyone who has committed, is suspected of having committed or of being about to commit, a cognisable offense, without an arrest warrant and use any amount of force "necessary to effect the arrest"; but they "must" hand that person over to the nearest police station with the "least possible delay".
They can also 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; in the process, they can apply any amount of force necessary. Most importantly, under the Section 6 of the Act, and this was what the Supreme Court had taken away last year, no legal proceeding can be brought against any member of the armed forces acting under AFSPA, without the permission of the central government.
No doubt that the first impression one has after glancing over this Act is that the critics are right in their demand to abrogate it altogether. But on closer scrutiny, it becomes clear that the rationale behind this extreme provision, that the Parliament has brought about, is fully justified.
No law anywhere in the world allows for secession. And under the Indian Constitution, Article makes the central government duty bound to protect the states from internal disturbance. Parts of it are controversial. Under section 4 a , mere suspicion gives a non-commissioned officer or an equivalent rank in the armed forces the power to shoot to kill. He can destroy any property, under section 4 b , if it is suspected of being used as a fortified position. Under section 4 d , force can be used to enter and search any house on suspicion of it being used as a hideout.
It has also been removed from eight of 16 police station jurisdictions in Arunachal Pradesh. According to defence experts, Meghalaya, Tripura and parts of Arunachal Pradesh have been declared free of insurgency. What about Jammu and Kashmir? This is a bit more complex. Jammu and Kashmir as with a lot of things has a separate legislation for this—its own Disturbed Areas Act DAA which came into existence in It was applied in Punjab and Chandigarh in due to secessionist movements and lasted for 14 years until there What is interesting was that while the Punjab government withdrew its DAA in , it continued in Chandigarh till September when the Punjab and Haryana high court struck it down following a petition filed by a local member of the Janata Dal United.
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Exemplary punishment must be meted out where the charges are proved. Sign in Create a Rediffmail account. Last updated on: September 06, IST. Get Rediff News in your Inbox: email. Print this article. Why India needs a national security strategy. How Wade-Stoinis got Australia across the finish line. Cong urges Kovind to take back Kangana's Padma Shri. The War Against Coronavirus. AFSPA debate is clouded by emotion, distrust.
0コメント