A Few Thoughts on Hindutva

Credit for this post goes to Center Right India's debate on similar theme. I begin with a simple question - Is Hindutva a subset of Hinduism or a superset?

Nowhere is Hindutva described as an exclusivist ideology. Savarkar described Hindutva as - those who consider India to be their motherland, fatherland, as well as their holy land, irrespective of his caste, creed and religion. Hinduism, according to Savarkar is only a derivative and a part of Hindutva, and he lets the subjects themselves decide rather than deciding who is included in Hindutva. For the record, Savarkar was an atheist. (link)

According to RSS, Hindutva "is inclusive of all who are born and who have adopted Bharat as their Motherland". Even that does not exclude any Indian citizen out of Hindutva's fold on any basis whatsoever. (link)

Supreme Court's three judge bench says the following about Hindutva: "it may well be that this word is used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos". (link)

"Hinduism" on the other hand has a strict hierarchical Caste system and, exceptions apart, is largely an exclusive domain of not only people following a particular religion but also discrimates according to the Caste within that religion as well. Casteism is a characteristic of Hinduism - the religion, not Hindutva. Having said that, it's also pertinent to add that Hinduism is also said to be the most tolerant and relatively liberal among all major religions and unlike others doesn't have an expansionist agenda. Since Sandeep seems to have covered Hinduism really well in the Center Right debate so will not delve further on that.

It is conclusively proven that Hindutva is a superset of Hinduism that is inclusive of followers of any religion or theism, shuns caste system, and is more secular and liberal than Hinduism. On the other hand, the people on the far right are followers of unadulterated Hinduism, not Hindutva, and can be termed as Hindu fundamentalists. Let's not conflate Hindu fundamentalism which is a subset of Hinduism with Hindutva which is a superset of Hinduism. Yes, Hindu fundamentalism is also a subset of Hindutva as much as White Supremacism is a subset of European and American culture and so forth. So given a choice the left liberals should have problem with Hinduism with it's exclusiveness and casteism, instead of Hindutva. If they have no problem with Hinduism then they should have none with the more inclusive Hindutva. if the word Hindu is what troubles them then they can coin a new term, everything else being equal.

So here we have some people who are trying to get all Indian citizens into an inclusive single cultural unit, ok they are not the Harvard types, but instead of a genuine critique we simply club them with the far right fundamentalists who could be found in every society.

Be that as it may, coming to the oft repeated question from the detractors of Hindutva in general and BJP in particular - Are there closet Hindu fundamentalists in BJP? That's like asking - are there closet Fascists in Congress? or are there closet Maoists in CPI(M)? The answer to all three questions is - yes it's possible, but have these parties declared that as their stated objectives? No they haven't, they all have reiterated their commitment to the Indian Constitution and that's what should matter to us.

Picture from here

Assam Riots: How Should India Deal with Illegal Migrants?

Like any other region of India, Assam too has seen large scale migration throughout history. By the time India got independence in 1947, Assam was a multi ethnic region consisting of Ahoms, various hill tribes of Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram, indegenous tribes - Bodos, Mising etc, migrants from peninsular India brought by the British to work in Tea Industries, Sikhs living in villages near Nowgaon since pre-colonial era and other migrants from rest of India who came for trade and mainly inhabited cities, besides others. That was the time when Indian Nationhood as we know it came into being, and we became a republic a couple of years later. Not that it's not common knowledge, but it's central to the debate.

The first wave of large-scale migration post-independence was around 1971 when native Bangladeshis being persecuted by erstwhile West-Pakistani Army migrated in millions into Assam, many of them never returned and started competing with the native Assamese for land and resources. Predictably Assamese started to agitate for deportation of Bangladeshi refugee turned immigrants and the agitation reached it's peak during early 80s. It's common knowledge that the ruling Congress struck gold in terms of huge number of assured votes in the form of grateful Bangladeshis. That was one of the first instance of Congress's perhaps hugely successful experiment with vote bank politics that entire India is familiar with today.

Ruling Cong tried it's best to maintain status quo as it suited them. It tried to divide Assam by driving a wedge between Bodos and Ahoms, it was the same time when demand for a seperate "Bodoland" started to emerge and enacted the highly controversial IMDT Act of 1983 that made it near impossible for a Bangladeshi migrant to be deported from Assam. It took 22 years for the Supreme Court to repeal IMDT Act as un-constitutional in 2005. The economic disparity between Bangladesh and India coupled with a govt friendly to illegal immigrants and a corrupt security force manning borders ensured that large scale immigration continue unabated.

Assam agitation culminated in "Assam Accord" signed by the central govt and representatives of All Assam Students Union. Which was largely an economic package and along with Illegal Migration Determination by Tribunal (IMDT) Act enacted two years before the accord virtually regularized illegal migrants from Bangladeshis who migrated into India up to March, 1971 and even beyond. Peace was bought through a financial package on one hand, and status-quo prevailed in terms of accepting Bangladeshis who migrated before March, 1971 as Indian citizens on the other. The vote bank was saved. Constitutionality of such an accord between a students union and central govt was never questioned.

What followed was rise of armed rebellion by United Liberation Front of Assam demanding independence from India, it became yet another outfit from North East asking for freedom from India, after National Socialist Council of Nagaland and Mizo National Front. President's rule ensued and AFSPA was applied to quell the "militancy". ULFA militancy was controlled by sustained military action on one hand and rival militancy of outfits like National Democratic Front of Bodoland and Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam etc. on the other. If rumors are to be believed the other outfits were created and sponsored by state as counterweight to ULFA. How far is that true is anybody's guess.

The other consequence of Assam agitation and accord was All Assam Students Union (AASU) developing into a full fledged political party - Assam Gana Parishad (AGP), first credible opposition to Congress in Assam, it had two, including a partial tenure, clueless, lacking in vision, and largely unremarkable tenures as govt in the state. In the last elections Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF) representing the now substantial Muslim population of Assam overtook AGP to become the second largest party after Congress in state assembly.

The Bangladeshi migrants who came as refugees initially struggled to make a living and gradually started competing for land and resources with villages in hinterland leading to violent clashes with the natives the worst of which we are witnessing in Kokrajhar that saw more than 40 people killed and close to 200000 people mostly Bodos displaced from their home and rendered refugees.

Predictably, Congress is in the same denial mode refusing to accept that Illegal Bangladeshi Migrants are the source of problem, taking refuge behind Assam Accord which they signed with AASU to legitimize Bangladeshi migrants, ably supported by the mainstream national media that has over the years become an appendage of the state. Whereas rest of Assam is helplessly watching from the sidelines as the state is still under AFSPA and under a rule of heavy presence of security forces under a hope that Army/SFs will take care of the situation and restore their rights as citizens, as they ought to have in normal circumstances. Or may be they have resigned to vote bank politics which they know is a reality they have to live with and the only ones agitating at the riots are the ones displaced from it.

Assam accord which I consider dubious, that legitimized millions of Bangladeshi immigrants who came in before 1971 instead of taking 1947, the year of independence as the only acceptable point of time as it ought to have since India became Republic, is at the heart of the debate. The matter was far more important than leaving it to an inexperienced students union and the ruling party to decide through an economic package that was anyway needed for the state. The matter should have been decided at least by the parliament after a thorough national level debate. If the issue of Citizenship and the Citizen's rights over Foreign Migrants is a regional issue then by that stretch even the issue of Territorial Integrity should also be a regional one.

Having said that, Bangladeshi migrants are a reality that we as a nation must acknowledge. The economic disparity we have with Bangladesh that drives migration can not be overlooked. We have to deal with them and decide the approach we want to take, should we confine them to refugee camps - the approach many countries take, or allow them to legitimately earn a living as non citizens - like in Dubai for e.g. is a call the Nation has to take collectively through parliament.

Certain amount of labor migration from various countries comprising South Asia is to be expected for economic reason considering the disparity in the economies of various countries. So the first approach that involves confining all illegal migrants to camps and treating them as convicts, even though it's the most popular method being used by the western world including US to deal with the issue of illegal migration, may not be practical or desirable in India's case. Hence the second approach of allowing them to legitimately stay, with limited rights, and earn a living, knowing fully well that they will compete with Indian labours, increasing supply in the labour market, seems to be the best available alternative.

Having infiltrated into India, illegal migrants would either head for cities for jobs, or look for pieces of fertile land to own. Our Villages are ill equipped to handle more than handful of migrants to help them as farm hands or at odd jobs, least of all share their agricultural lands with them. Cities on the other hand have a voracious appetite for labours, and they are better equipped than the villages in terms of availibility of sufficient police force to take care of law & order situations, utilities, and job opportunities to make it possible for the migrants to make a living without land ownership, the downside of which is driving down of wages in the labor market.

If we "must" have migrants from other countries, we must have them in cities which are better equipped to handle them and their cosmopolitan nature reduces friction between communities and provide a support base for various communities, which can not be expected from villages anywhere, and any attempt at forcing villages to accept and share resources with foreign migrants will lead to bloody clashes the kind of which we are seeing in Assam.

IMDT Act enacted by the ruling Cong in 1983 that replaced the Foreigner's Act of 1946 was clearly driven by political agenda of vote bank, Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional in 2005, but 22 years were enough to change the demographic alongwith electoral landscape of Assam. The rights of Scheduled Tribes like Bodos etc. and also that of non tribal villagers need to protected at all cost. And rights of foreign migrants can not be put on the same pedestal as those of citizens.

There is no dearth of practical solutions and ideas as expressed by the opinion leaders, well informed and good intentioned people like here and here, which thanks to a democratic social media have made it possible for people to express and spread. Thanks to them a renewed and much needed debate on a national level on the crucial issue of how to deal with Illegal Migration has been set rolling which till now was sadly absent in the main stream media. Whatever be the solution that emerges from the debate can only be better than dubious accords and flawed legislations like IMDT.

Picture from here

What Caused the Ladakh Incident?

10 May 2012 will be marked as one of the lowest point in the Officer-Jawan relationship in an Army Unit when troops of an Artillery Unit undergoing training related activity in Ladakh got involved in fisticuffs with the Officers of their Unit resulting in hospitalization of three persons including the Commanding Officer, a Jawan and another Officer besides five Major rank Officers fleeing from the Unit and Jawans taking control of the Armoury as reported in the Media. It was a complete breakdown of command and control that is associated with the Army. The incident naturally triggered a debate on how did things came to this pass? Is it a symptom of a systemic flaw or a case of non implementation of practices that would have avoided flare up of such an incident that is normally being practiced elsewhere? the jury is still out on that.

As usual many conclusions have been drawn by the commentariat. Most instant analysis pointing towards existence of classes within the Army, Sahayak culture, or a set of rules and culture that is reminiscent of the colonial era. Possible. But, if that were indeed the reason for the incident that took place in Ladakh, it wouldn't have been first of it's kind considering the fact that Indian Army has hundreds of Units and are in existence since last 65 years along with all those factors that are being attributed to that ugly incident.

The Army has been through major transformations in recent times, some of them was deemed necessitated by a change in cultural and socio-economic profile of the people who are joining the organization. The AV Singh Committee Report that was implemented in 2005 has resulted in major changes in the organization that has transformed the Units, the consequences of which are yet to be seen in their entirety.

Younger Age Profile of Units In simple terms, as a result of implementation of AVSC report, the age of the Officers commanding a Unit have been reduced drastically. Prior to AVSC, the Commanding Officer, and other Officers of a Unit used to have much more service than they have now resulting in much youger Unit and Sub Unit Commanders.

If the driving factor for AVSC was to make the Units younger & as a result more fighting fit, changing the age profile of the handful of officers would have hardly made a dent on the average age of the Unit when the Jawans serve in the Unit till their retirement age.

Due to a younger profile of Officers, the collective experience of Officers of a Unit have seen a drastic reduction. Now, how important is collective experience is debatable, but it seems unlikely that a much younger set of Officers will be able to take better decisions than an older one. And it needs to be spared a thought that if the unit that witnessed the incident had an older set of Officers as was prior to AVSC, would the resultant reaction of the Officers managing the Unit would have been markedly different in such a situation?

Tooth to Tail Ratio Officers after completing their command or the ones past that age most likely become part of the administrative tail. Post AVSC, the tooth to tail ratio of the set of Officers have skewed towards the latter. A tail is justified if it exists to maintain & support the teeth - the fighting elements, but if it grows too big, much of it gets used in supporting and upkeep of itself at the expense of the teeth, which could be happening post AVSC. This problem gets compounded when it is combined with an already existing shortage of Officers that was described as critical even before AVSC was implemented and still exists.

Army is known for swift implementation of decisions, needless to say the change recommended by AVSC was effected very fast, but did the organization cope up with the speed of change to which it was subjected? needs to be studied.

It will be a while before the entire consequences of implementation of the AVSC comes to fore, and it could be a mistake to attribute the Ladakh incident or for that matter anything that goes wrong in the Army to AVSC as well, like the uninitiated attributing anything that goes wrong in the Army to class, colonial mindset or archaic rules. I trust their professionalism and hope they'll prove the skeptics wrong.

Demilitarization of Siachen

The recent incident of 124 Pakistani soldiers buried under an avalanche over their post near Siachen glacier reignited the old debate on the futility or otherwise of two nations fighting a battle for control of an inhospitable glacier about 80 km in length that is at a height of over 6000 meters.


There are strong arguments for demilitarization of Siachen glacier, among what has been suggested, firstly it's barren and inhospitable where survival itself, even for a soldier is tough, over 2000 soldiers have lost their lives since it was occupied in 1984, most of them due to extreme weather conditions than the actual conflict. The cost of occupying the area in terms of human lives lost and maintenance of troops in that terrain is immense, and lastly resolution of Siachen can set a precedence for resolution of other contentious issues between India and Pakistan.


It looks like a simple solution to a problem that is not so hard to comprehend given it's coverage in various national and international media. But the issue is more complex than that.


Firstly control of Siachen gives not just a control over the 80 odd km long glacier but about 3000 sq kms of area situated in a crucial region with Shaksam valley controlled by China on it's North, Karakoram Pass and Aksai Chin controlled by China on it's East and Northern Areas of POK on it's west in addition to control over at least three mountain passes. (Map for Reference)


Control of Siachen Glacier might also be of such strategic advantage to whoever controls the area that may not be in public domain. Significantly, Pakistan carried out attacks on multiple occasions losing about 1300 soldiers in the process till a cease fire was brought about in 2003.


Kargil war is proof enough that Pakistan can not be trusted on contentious issues of strategic importance. It need not be reiterated that Pakistan occupied Indian areas vacated during winters in the heights of Kargil and Drass, and blamed it on insurgents that led to Kargil War. Even US got the taste of it on the issue of protecting Osama Bin Laden, Taliban & Al Qaida. That makes it even more difficult for India to accept any agreement involving removal of troops from a strategically important area.


And lastly it could be a mistake to consider Siachen as a bilateral issue between India & Pakistan. China may be an elephant in the room that few are talking about in the context of Siachen, despite the fact that the Shaksam valley area immediately to it's north is controlled by China, and China's attitude towards territorial issues in Tibet, Arunachal, Taiwan, South China Sea, Aksai Chin etc are well known.


To conclude, the issue of Siachen is complex and involves many dimentions, and the basis of India's decisions should be it's own assessment & not of agenda driven global peaceniks, on how it wants to take care of it's territory, by leaving it unattended or by physically occupying it.


Picture from Here

Consider Not Voting

The recent municipal elections in Bombay made news because of low turnout of voters, about 60 percent of the electorate, if not more, did not came out to vote prompting reactions from the commentariat ranging from "they are the reason why our politicians suck to begin with" to "they don't deserve to demand anything from the political establishment" or words to that effect. US also doesn't see a lot of people coming out to vote in their elections despite which it remains a vibrant democracy that sees frequent changes in terms of fresh thinking & leadership at pretty regular interval, but that is besides the point.


US and the much of west grew economically to it's present position on the principles of free market economy, where the market forces drove the decisions of firms, governments and also individuals resulting in massive industrialization and capturing of global markets due to the competitive advantages of industrialization, scale and labour migration. But the present western world is a shadow of it's former self. Welfare systems have taken the place of free market system. The west is reeling under massive burden of social security, healthcare, and need to keep poorly performing factories running just to keep people employed.


Others are no better either, India's love with it's welfare systems can not be over stated, it seems to be waiting for some growth in it's treasury before another, even more massive round of welfare schemes can be unleashed on the crippling economy. That west can afford it to some extent, India can't, doesn't seem to deter the establishment Robin Hoods. China on the other hand, till recently, was making news for it's "state capitalism", but it too has lined up it's own massive welfare schemes of enormous proportions.


The dismantling of the socialist block of Eastern Europe and Soviet Union, increasing isolation of communist North Korea and trail blazing growth of China riding on economic reforms and state capitalism should have resulted in vindication of free market system as the solution to economic problems but reverse seems to be happening defying all conventional knowledge.


One of the reason why free market capitalism proved itself to be a better economic system than communism and socialism was the minimal political interference. Politics was considered to be not more than a necessary evil reflected in no. of people voting in elections, but these days it has taken center stage in all our discourses and all aspects of our lives and work, the increasing no. of people voting in elections also suggests how much people desire political interference in largely economic affairs.


Traditionally the poor of developing countries and the old people of the developed ones were the ones who voted in large numbers and consequently the reason for increasing welfare systems in both may be due to the ageing of the west and continued destitution of the east, which also explains why cities like Bombay has so little turn out for polls. If that is indeed the case, it's natural for the middle class and the young to be apathetic to political processes as IMO it should naturally be. All politicians do everywhere is just feign attempts at solving economic problems and take their cuts in the process, whereas the market dynamics takes care of economic problems as is expected.


I am not resorting to "all politicians are bad" line that we are familiar with, I am not making value judgments, just that politics is just a necessary evil, nothing more, nothing less, voting for them to solve our economic problems is like paying woodoo doctors to give us placebos to cure our ailments. So the bottom line is "consider not voting" lest it inflates their sense of self importance and the false belief in their own abilities to solve economic problems.


Picture from here.

Anatomy of a Pogrom

India has had a violent history, and majority of that violence have been as a result of religious intolerance. In colonial period, British took advantage of these fault lines and pitted one community against the other culminating in a violent bifurcation of India. Moplah rebellion of 1921 is one of the earliest example, and one of the bloodiest, of communal riots as we recognize it today. The Direct Action of 1946 in Kolkata was another one of the bloodiest communal riots India witnessed. Against that backdrop India gained independence from colonial rule.

Unfortunately, religious intolerance too got carried forward post independence, and India witnessed regular manifestation of that intolerance like Jamshedpur 1964, Ahmedabad 1969, Jamshedpur 1979, Nellie 1983, Delhi 1984, Hondh-Chillar 1984, Ahmedabad 1985, Meerut 1987, Bhagalpur 1989, J&K Ethnic cleansing 1989, Mumbai 1992, Gujarat 2002, Aligarh 2006, Deganga 2010...it's an incomplete list of communal riots that have taken place post independence.

Though most of those riots were a manifestation of existing religious intolerance, politics have played an important role in exploiting those fault lines for polarization of the electorate and many of those riots can be categorized as pogroms. It's important to separate pogroms from riots, for a riot to be described as a pogrom, it should meet at least the following criteria:-

a) Proven inaction by Police.

b) Hush-hush inquiry following the incident and a report that never sees the light of the day.

c) Active media's connivance in burying the news and is never mentioned after a while.

d) No demand from the so called civil society and intelligentsia for prosecution & conviction.

e) Little or no conviction rate by judicial process.

Let's objectively scrutinize the riots against these criteria to ascertain if they were a pogrom. Unfortunately, precious little information is available in public domain of most riots and ethnic cleansing that have taken place including those that have witnessed thousands of deaths and those rendered refugees, proving active connivance of the media in burying the news.

Take Nellie Massacre of 1983 for example, about 2000 people lost their lives as per official figures, there is no evidence of any tough police action, the inquiry commission under Tribhubhan Prasad Tiwary never saw the light of the day, Media seldom brings up the subject and there doesn't seem to be any civil society or op-ed writer's outrage over lack of conviction in the case. And yes, not a single person was even prosecuted. If we ever had a Pogrom, this was definitely one.

Mumbai riot of 1992 saw about 900 deaths officially, there "is" evidence of tough police action in the form of 356 deaths due to police firing. Inquiry commission under Justice Srikrishna was never made public nor any action taken against those that the report allegedly indicted by successive governments, and media seems to have buried the news for good, there is no outrage over lack of conviction only lamentation by leading intellectuals over viciousness of the communal envioronment. There was precious little conviction in the case that involved close to thousand deaths. It meets four out of five criterias that would categorize it as a pogrom except that police acted with force.

Bhagalpur Riot of 1989 saw 1200 deaths by one estimate, it met the same fate as Mumbai 1993 with regards to media's and civil society's silence over the incident and it meets all the above mentioned criteria except that courts have convicted about 50 persons for riots.

Delhi riots of 1984 saw about 2700 deaths in Delhi as per official figures. there is no instance of tough police action against rioters, despite constitution of 10 inquiry commissions, just 6 people have been convicted, and like Nellie, it too qualifies to be categorized as a pogrom.

J&K Ethnic cleansing that took place beginning from 1985 made about 300,000 people refugees by one estimate and also resulted in deaths of no less than tens of thousands of people in what can only be termed as terrorism than riot. Though Police as well as Army has acted with force but media, intelligentsia, civil society, NGOs and all the otherwise highly opinionated commentariat have been conspicuous by their near silence on the issue. We are yet to see any prosecution of those allegedly guilty of involvement in the ethnic cleansing of such a proportion, neither is their any demand from any section of the commentariat except the muted voices of the affected themselves. This event too qualifies in all the above criteria to be termed as a pogrom.

Gujarat riots of 2002 saw about 1200 deaths by one estimate. About 170 people were killed in Police firing. Media and so called intellectuals have been relentless in it's criticism of the riot. 11 persons have received death sentences and at least 51 persons have received life sentences, many cases got delayed due to stay on trial court by activists. We know so much about Gujarat riots because there was no attempt by the media to bury the issue and delete it from public memory like in innumerable other riots of which we know precious little about and because information is easily available in public domain. In none of the above criteria it can be categorized as a Pogrom by any objective standards.

Needless to say, successive riots that were suppressed by the establishment and media resulted in rioters going scot free and in all probability repeated their acts with impunity. Existence of religious intolerance in India was bad enough, riots that never saw any delivery of justice only made a bad situation worse.

Picture from here

In Defense of Absolute Free Speech

Much has been spoken about Article 19 of the constitution along with it's various clauses and restrictions, made palatable with word "reasonable", that it imposes to the freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of expression came bundled with the original constitution, the restrictive clauses were added as part of the 1st amendment to the constitution a little more than one year after it was enacted. Following reasons were cited for bringing in the first amendment curbing freedom of expression (Reference):

1. The citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression was found to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and violence.
2. In other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom.

That it takes two third majority in Parliament to pass any amendment to the constitution, and the fact that it came into force and have remained unchallenged since, proves that there is a larger consensus on state's discretionary powers to impose restrictions on free speech as "the state" deems reasonable, it doesn't matter that a minority thinks that the discretionary powers should rest with the individual rather than the state or similar line of thought favoring absolute free speech. I belong to that minority.


One might argue that why do I need absolute free speech when the probability of anything worthwhile or original, coming out of it is slim? My contention is that people don't hurt other's sensibilities not because the law restricts that, and conversely, people who normally don't, won't start hurting other's sensibilities in the absence of those restrictions either. Every law is based on the premise that "Man is a rational being", except the law restricting freedom of expression, which is based on the premise that only the state is capable of deciding what is rational. Do we need laws to define freedom? Or do we need laws to define restrictions on freedom? IMO freedom of "anything" should be the default position, putting it in words and getting everyone to sign on it is an exercise in futility. That exercise should be carried out for defining restrictions on freedom, and the onus should be on the state and those who advocate restriction to justify the restrictions being imposed.


No person in his right mind, will either advocate or support anyone advocating violence and murder, but isn't putting restrictions on everyone's fundamental right of free speech a very crude way of preventing such hate speech? Have we been able to prevent any of the riots  from taking place, fatwas from being declared or convict those who incited these riots on the basis of restrictions on free speech? It's just one example of the ineffectiveness of these restrictions. However what "has" been achieved is a long list of books and other artistic expressions banned by the state on demands of various pressure groups who have got all the more emboldened after the state relented to their demands of curbing freedom of expression. So if enough number of people get annoyed by an opinion, questioning a belief or a piece of expression artistic or otherwise, or if they break enough Public furniture they can get the state to ban that piece of work. Isn't it ironical that a constitutional amendment that espouses curbing a particular type of violent behaviour ends up rewarding the same?


Image from here

AFSPA: Need for a Balanced Debate

Of all the current raging issues, AFSPA is one of the most debated and probably one of the least understood as well (The Act can be accessed here). Much has been said about it in various Op-eds, Primetime TV Debates, Tweets and Blogs. The most visible symbol of Anti-AFSPA side of the debate is the fast undertaken by Irom Chanu Sharmila in Manipur, who is fighting for it's removal since last 11 years. J&K CM Omar Abdullah stoked the debate further by pushing for it's removal from J&K. The Mainstream media both TV and Print, have been increasingly taking an Anti-AFSPA stance and building up a rhetorical crescendo. Within govt itself differences of opinions have emerged which is well known.


Last couple of years have seen a new-media revolution of sorts where more and more people are taking to not only expressing their opinions on issues such as AFSPA, but also made it possible for them to participate in debates. And coupled with ease of accessibility of relevant information, the natural corollary to such a progression should have been an informed debate on such issues instead of the mainstream media pushing rhetorical one sided arguments and Op eds down our throats through a one way communication. However despite the ease of accessibility of information there appears to be a lot of misconception surrounding AFSPA that needs to be dispelled.


There are two major misconceptions about AFSPA that shape Public Opinion:
1. Any Army Jawan can open fire to kill anybody with impunity.
2. Anybody can be arrested for an indefinite period.


AFSPA doesn't give powers to any or every Army Jawan to open fire, make arrests or carry out search. Only a person commanding at least a Section can order such an act (Sec 4). Although arrests can be made under AFSPA but the person detained has to be handed over to Police with least possible delay (Sec 5). Many provisions in the Act are not put to use by the Army depending on circumstances or it's assessment. For e.g. Prohibition of assembly of five or more persons (Sec 4(a)) is not being enforced in any of the area under AFSPA. And Army has not carried out any operations whatsoever in many cities including Srinagar and large areas within AFSPA zone since many years.


Since it's inception in 1958 Army working under AFSPA has helped restore democracy and democratic institutions in states like Punjab, Mizoram, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur and J&K which is a commendable feat and it proves the merits of the Act. What we should keep in mind is that the situation in insurgency affected areas is not a law and order problem but akin to a war being fought on at least two planes, one is on the physical plane where opposite forces fight for control of territory where their writ could run, the other plane is psychological, over perception and projection of an image conducive to their respective causes, and they are not mutually exclusive. If AFSPA is removed, it projects a positive image that democracy peace and normalcy has returned, it is capable of giving us a momentary high that we have won it over the psychological plane, not to mention thumbing nose at the insurgents. But are we looking for a momentary high or a long term sustainable peace? Too much focus on projecting a positive image while undermining the work being done on ground may not be best for a lasting solution. IMO it's better to win on the physical plane, including winning hearts and minds, before we start celebrating over the other.


The common ground between the supporters and detractors of AFSPA is that, AFSPA can only be a temporary phase to bring normalcy to a disturbed area, restore democratic institutions and create an atmosphere where these institutions can function normally. The main disagreement is on the timing of it's removal. Increasingly, the public, rightfully, is emerging as an important stakeholder whose opinion has started to matter a lot in issues such as AFSPA. Some cynicism apart, the public including those in AFSPA zone like J&K and North East as well have done well to resist reacting in a knee jerk fashion to the rhetorical arguments and appeals to emotions through fast and imagery.


Image from Here