National

Image-Laundering?

The Army seeks NHRC's seal of honour for courtmartials, in vain

Advertisement

Image-Laundering?
info_icon
  •  On May 30, 1996, Ram Rattan of Jammu & Kashmir Rifles killed a man and woman after deserting his post in Kohima.
  •  On June 5, 1997, two havaldars of the 2nd Mahar regiment—Appa Rao Waghmare and Vital Kalane—raped a housewife in front of her polio-stricken son.

    THESE are just two isolated instances of the atrocities, perpetrated on innocent civilians, that have been occurring with alarming regularity in Kashmir and the Northeastern states. Such sordid tales—the Army has been quick to deny them—have given its image a beating. In a badly-needed endeavour to whitewash its image, the Army authorities have adopted a two-pronged strategy. One, it proposes to conduct courtmartials for all human rights allegations. Two, it has asked for a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) representative to be appointed observer to courtmartial proceedings conducted under the Army Act, 1950.

  • Advertisement

    The offer was made to the NHRC by the then Army chief, Gen. Roy Chowdhary, and other senior army officials, at a seminar on the Armed Forces Special Power Act, 1958, on May 13. However, while the NHRC theoretically welcomed the option, it soon developed cold feet. Virendra Dayal, senior NHRC member, told Outlook: "We cannot accept the role of passive observer for the commission. Whatever the NHRC does must be transparent, above reproach and enhance its credibility." Ravi Nair, executive director, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), was outright sceptical: "The NHRC should not be part of a disease but a cure."

    Advertisement

    The reason for the NHRC's distinct unenthusiasm? Human rights activists are of the view that courtmartial proceedings are soft on those in uniform. The low rate of convictions has raised many questions over the fairness of the whole exercise. From January '90 to November '97, over 867 specific complaints were filed against Army personnel. Of these, only 88 were punished for various human rights violations like rape, molestation, custodial death, or even general failure in command and petty theft.As many as 783 cases were dismissed as the allegations were found to be baseless. In only one case was an Army personnel given capital punishment.

    Says Nair: "Courtmartial proceedings have little credibility. One can gauge this from the number of appeals against court-martial proceedings in the Supreme Court." Col. Anil Bhatt, Army public relations officer, is quick to counter the charge of unfairness: "Courtmartials have been open to the public and the press."

    Yet, human rights activists say the Army has been favoured in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which grants Army personnel immunity from being probed directly. Section 19 prescribes that the NHRC cannot investigate any allegations but can merely ask for a report on any particular violation from Army headquarters. On the other hand, similar human rights cases against the police and other public servants covered under Section 17 allows the commission to conduct its own probe. So where does the NHRC intervene in a human rights violation involving the Army? This year the Committee on Human Rights (COHR), Manipur, filed a complaint regarding the death of civilians in cross-firing between the 20th Assam rifles and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) guerrillas. The commission sought a report from the defence ministry and recommended that the ministry pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the next of kin. The money was paid.

    Advertisement

    But in actual fact, even here the commission had virtually no role in ascertaining the facts of the case independently. Notes SAHRDC in its periodic report on civil and political rights to the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC): "If there are no independent investigations, then the whole purpose of having the NHRC is a ploy to protect culprits belonging to the Armed forces. In the whole exercise, the NHRC is nothing but a mere post office."

    Meanwhile, various sections of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, '58—which gives wide, sweeping powers to Armymen—have been challenged in the Supreme Court by PUCL, COHR and NHRC. The Act was introduced in 1958 to tackle a problem relating to Naga tribal insurgency. Even though the Gauhati High Court ruled against the Act, the Delhi High Court upheld it. The Supreme Court has completed the hearing. Its verdict is likely to affect the course of protection of human rights and the way the Army functions in terrorist-ridden areas.

    Advertisement

    Senior Army officers allege that human rights organisations and the media ignore the issue of violence against soldiers. From 1988 to April 1997, the Army lost 1,375 men and 2,237 were injured in Kashmir alone. In the Northeast, the Army and police lost 459 personnel and another 250 were injured between January 15, 1995, and September 30, 1997. Yet, the difficulty incurred in the course of tackling insurgency can in no way be taken as an excuse for excesses. Perhaps more openness may help the Army win it the confidence of the people it protects. And Gen. Roy Chowdhary's offer to the NHRC could well be a first step in this direction.

    Advertisement

    Tags

      Advertisement

      Advertisement

      Advertisement

      Advertisement

      Advertisement

      Advertisement