Perilous signal

THE UNION HOME Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani's announcement that the Centre is considering extending ``relief'' to security personnel accused of human rights violations in their operations against militancy gives rise to serious misgivings. Mr. Advani did not care to spell out what exactly he meant by ``relief'', an omission which, given the overall tenor of his remarks, has led to concern that this may extend to mean some form of general amnesty. Although the Centre has since ruled out a ``blanket amnesty'', the logic for extending ``special relief'' to suspected human rights violators remains specious. The state has a duty to ensure that human rights are safeguarded rather than introduce measures which specifically condone their violation. Moreover, any move which allows human rights violators to get off the hook will send out the perilous signal that excesses committed by security personnel will be tolerated or disregarded. In a country where the record on human rights is, to understate the point, far from ideal, any measure which - either directly or indirectly - encourages their breach must be firmly resisted.

The Home Minister's proposal is ostensibly intended to protect security personnel and boost their morale in the fight against terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and the North-Eastern States. But the existing legal provisions hardly hamper the battle against militancy, the real causes of which lie much deeper and elsewhere. For instance, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the scope of which was recently enlarged to cover almost all of Jammu and Kashmir, vests the security forces with virtually unbridled powers to tackle militancy. It is difficult to imagine what additional ``rights'' or ``protection'' the Home Minister or others in the NDA Government require in effectively combating the insurgency there. Second, militancy feeds off human rights violations, thus rendering measures which encourage the abuse of human rights not only unjust but also counter-productive. One of the important causes for the spread of public cynicism, alienation and unrest in States gripped by the menace of militancy is the perception that the security forces are heavy- handed and oppressive. There is a painful difference between strengthening the hand of the security forces (through additional men or material) and turning a blind eye to acts of injustice. Mr. Advani's intermittent calls for the re-introduction of a TADA like law to tackle insurgency is symptomatic of a mindset which shortsightedly links the failure to tackle militancy with the absence of ``special powers'' and ``special laws''.

It is perhaps no accident that Mr. Advani's announcement that the Centre proposes to provide ``relief'' to security forces was made in Punjab, where some 300 or so members of the State police face prosecution charges for human rights violations allegedly committed when the State was under the grip of militancy. Sections of the State police have been exerting pressure on the Government over the ``plight'' of accused personnel and Mr. Advani's vague promise of ``relief'' appears partly directed at this quarter. Battling militancy is a difficult and challenging task and there is no doubt that members of the country's security forces have undertaken this at considerable personal risk. It is one thing for Mr. Advani to laud them for the sacrifices they have made in bringing peace to Punjab or combating insurgency in other States. It is quite another to signal that the Centre is prepared to consider winking at conduct on the part of security personnel which is totally at odds with democratic norms.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : The Taliban's defiant rage