What is in a name?

In July 2004, the rape and murder of Thangjam Manorama Devi by Army men sparked off a huge mass movement in Manipur against the draconian AFSPA. One year later, have Manorama and the people of the North East got justice?

One year after Manorama was found dead, shot in her vagina, stomach and back. One year after the brave women of Manipur dared the state with their bare breasts. One year after Chittaranjan immolated himself. And nearly five years since Irom Sharmila had her last meal. Has anything changed in Manipur? Yes and no. Justice for Manorama still remains elusive. The report of the Justice Upendra Commission, constituted to enquire into the brutal rape and murder of Thangjam Manorama gathers dust, nearly eight months after it was submitted. The only silver lining is that in late June, the Gauhati High Court urged the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to act upon the findings of the Upendra Commission and to initiate appropriate action against “the indicted persons, if any”. It also directed the Union Home Ministry to make the report public at the earliest to honour the citizens’ right to information.

The Army meanwhile continues its trigger-happy ways. But with a difference: it has gotten smarter. In May this year, Assam Rifles personnel shot dead a 50-year-old woman, her daughter and baby grand daughter in a remote Kuki village in Senapati district. Fearful that it may trigger another uprising of the kind seen after Manorama’s murder, the Army struck a deal with the village chieftain, promising cash, ornaments, vessels and pigs in exchange for the killed. The deal was sealed in the presence of a senior minister of the Ibobi government.

If the Upendra Commission is yet to see the light of the day, there is an even greater secrecy surrounding the Jeevan Reddy Commission instituted last November after the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh famously conceded that AFSPA was indeed a draconian law. Consisting of five members—with not even one from Manipur—the terms of reference for the Committee were thoroughly problematic to begin with. Its brief was to “examine the act and advise the Government whether to amend the provisions of the Act to bring these in accordance with the obligations of the Government towards protection of human rights or to replace it by a more humane Act”.

If reports in the media are to be believed, the Reddy Commission has transgressed the official brief. According to some news reports, the Jeevan Reddy Commission has suggested that the AFSPA should be repealed, but, hold your breath, its provisions should be incorporated in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967! It has upheld, according to the reports, the dreaded Clause 4 (a) – in a sense the soul of AFSPA – which empowers the armed forces to “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force prohibiting the assembly of five or morepersons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons …”

Ah, and the H word. The Reddy Commission has apparently recommended that while AFSPA is morphed into the by-now excess baggage ULAPA, care should be taken to ‘humanise’ it. And how will the ULAPA neé AFSPA/ POTA/ TADA acquire a humane face? The Reddy Commission emphasizes that the Supreme Court guidelines of Dos and Don’ts to the security forces should be adhered to. The Dos and Don’ts issued by the SC stress that the troops must give a warning before firing, and as far as possible involve the civilian authorities, particularly the local police both during and after the operations. The SC judgement also held the list of Dos and Don’ts to be binding on the Army, any disregard to which would entail suitable action under the Army Act, 1950. But did that stop the Assam Rifles from picking up and killing Manorama? Did it deter them from firing at an old school teacher and his wife in Bishenpur district last November? Did it prevent them from indulging in countless incidents of brutal torture?

Further, says the Commission, its application should be universal, i.e, throughout the country. In its opinion, law and order problems are not a preserve of North East alone; central Indian states hit by Left wing extremism could make good use of it too. This is also the Reddy Commission’s formula for assuaging the North East’s sense of alienation and isolation: let all reel under this draconian law; let there be no regional discrimination when it comes to repression.

If the reports are true – and there is no reason to believe otherwise given the trajectory of black laws in our country – it appears that the Commission and the State would rather turn the question of draconian laws into that of mere semantics. It is not simply the name of AFSPA that is hated, dreaded and resisted in the North East, but the very DNA of its repressive clauses that allows the army to violate the most fundamental of people’s rights with impunity and assurance of immunity. And by advocating retaining the most draconian of its provisions, albeit in another law, the State has blown the bugle for the next round of battle for democracy.

--Manisha Sethi