In August last year, Tongpong Wangham, a cabinet minister in Arunachal Pradesh, and T.L.Rajkumar, alegislator, joined fellow law makers belonging to the ruling Congress party to push through a rather harshAnti-crime Bill in the State Legislature. The Bill was easily passed in the 60-member House, where theCongress, led by Chief Minister Mukut Mithi, commands a strength of as many as 59 members.
With the State Governor's assent on October 3, the Arunachal Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Act, 2002 (APCOCA),became law. Chief Minister Mithi had stated that the new piece of legislation would help tackle organizedcrime and insurgency in his State, where as many as 14 armed groups were operating, most of them propped up orbacked by one or the other faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN).
Less than a year later, on April 30, the Arunachal Pradesh Police arrested Wangham and Rajkumar under APCOCAon charges of having 'links' with the Isak-Muivah faction of the NSCN, though they were freed on bail justhours later. Another Congress legislator, Lowangcha Wanglat, is also sought by the Police on similar charges,but is said to be outside the country.
While the authorities themselves were tight-lipped on the arrests, both Wangham and Rajkumar, contacted bythis writer over telephone in the State capital, Itanagar, admitted they were arrested under APCOCA for theiralleged links with the NSCN-IM, a charge they vehemently deny.
The two veteran Congress leaders (Rajkumar has been representing his Khonsa East Assembly constituency inTirap district for the past 24 years) said their names were among several other names that figured in thediaries of two NSCN-IM cadres arrested from Itanagar in August last year. Stating that simply finding theirnames in documents recovered from the possession of any insurgent cadre cannot be regarded as proof of theirlinks with that group, the two legislators repeatedly sought to emphasise that the area they belong to (Tirapand Changlang districts, bordering Myanmar) was in the grip of insurgents, and that lot of things can happendue to the 'threat factor' under the prevailing situation.
The duo were said to have been booked under Section 3 of APCOCA, on charges of harbouring insurgent cadres.What Wangham and Rajkumar told the special magistrate (the executive doubles up as the judiciary in ArunachalPradesh), who is the Deputy Commissioner of the Papum Pare district under which capital Itanagar falls, is notknown. But what Wangham told this writer is both interesting and significant:
"I come from an insurgency affected area. We often get written notices from the rebels as well asthreatening telephone calls. At times, we need to reply to certain notices sent by them (rebels). On certainoccasions, we being public leaders, need to meet certain people to find out whether those who have sent aparticular notice are genuine rebels of that particular group or not. We keep the authorities informed of suchthings most of the time. Now, it is unfair and incorrect to term these actions on our part as evidence oflinks with insurgents. After all, the ground situation needs to be understood and taken into account."
Provided a special 'Z' category security cover by the State Government, Wangham admitted that insurgency iscontinuing in the two districts despite counter-insurgency operations by security forces, and despite theoperation of laws such as the Disturbed Areas Act and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in the area.
If the arrests of a cabinet minister and a ruling party legislator itself was an unprecedented development inthe annals of Indian democracy, their immediate release on bail, and their continuance in their respectivepositions - particularly Wangham continuing in his post as the minister for rural works - is equally, if notmore, intriguing.
Within hours after a Deputy Inspector General and a Superintendent of Police arrived at Wangham's officialresidence in Itanagar, completed the formality of the arrest, and asked him to accompany them to the court, hereturned after securing bail. So did Rajkumar. "The magistrate was convinced that we have no links withthe insurgent group," Rajkumar claimed later.
Several questions need to be answered by the authorities here: If there was evidence of Wangham's linkswith the NSCN, why did Chief Minister Mithi not drop him from his ministry as a first move before approvinghis arrest? How could a district magistrate be expected to stick to the rulebook when he or she has to doubleup as a judicial magistrate and examine a cabinet minister in the State of his/her posting? Since the ministerhas actually been booked under the anti-crime law, why has he been allowed to continue as a cabinet minister?Would it not have been proper for the Chief Minister to drop Wangham from the ministry until he was formallygiven a clean chit by the investigating authorities?
This would have been the expected course of action that should have been followed, though this is not intendedto suggest that Wangham or Rajkumar actually do have links with the militants. The whole episode is peculiarin the sense that when APCOCA was brought about, human rights and student groups in the State opposed it,saying the Congress has put the Act in place to silence its rivals. Now we see a Congress government pickingup two of its own party legislators under the Act.
Is it possible that Chief Minister Mithi was using the Act to quell possible dissidence within his party?The facts are far from clear, but Mithi has to share equally in the blame if it is eventually proved that hisparty colleagues were hand-in-glove with the militants.
More than this, the near immediate grant of bail to the duo also interesting. APCOCA is supposed to be quite astringent piece of legislation, widely described as a 'draconian law' by rights groups in the State. The Acthas no easy provision for anticipatory bail, or for automatic enlargement on bail, has punishments laid downthat include three years in jail to life imprisonment, and fines ranging from Rs 100,000 to Rs 500,000.
But, by far the most controversial provision is the modification of Section 167 of the Criminal ProcedureCode (CrPC) in terms of which an accused can be kept in police remand for up to 30 days (from the normal 14days under CrPC) and in judicial remand for 90 to 180 days (from the usual 60 days under CrPC). The Actempowers the police to intercept telephones and other modes of communication used by a suspect.
Under the circumstances, Chief Minister Mithi will have to do a lot of explaining regarding thecircumstances leading to the arrest of two of his colleagues and their subsequent release on bail. Else,speculations on the motive behind this drama will fly thick and fast, and these can only erode the credibilityof the Act itself in the long run.
Wasbir Hussain is Associate Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi; Consulting Editor,The Sentinel, Guwahati. The article appears here courtesy the South Asia Intelligence Review ofthe South Asia Terrorism Portal
Tags