WEALTH & CELEBRITY DRIVEN JUSTICE

Justice Can Be Influenced

The judiciary, and that also higher judiciary, has been very much in the news during the last few weeks.

 First the Salman Khan case, where it takes the lower court 13 years to   hold the actor guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a hit and run case, but it takes the higher court only three hours to suspend the sentence and release him on bail.  Then the Jayalalithaa case, where the trial court convicts the lady of possessing disproportionate assets and sentences her to four years imprisonment and Rs 100 crore fine on September 27, 2014 after the case dragged on for 18 years.  The High Court disposes off the case on May11, 2015.  The public prosecutor appointed at the eleventh hour says that he was not given an opportunity to present his case.

These are not the only cases that have created an impression in the public mind that the criminal justice system in this country is wealth and influence driven.  Sanjay Dutt has been let out on parole on numerous occasions. Lalu Prasad is out on bail even after being convicted in a corruption case.  Now Ramalinga Raju has also been released on bail.  Some earlier cases that immediately  come to mind are those of underworld don Babloo Srivastava, who was convicted for life term on July 3, 2006, whose appeal was heard by Delhi High Court on July 12, 2006 and who was acquitted on February 23, 2007.  Ansal brothers were convicted for 2 year jail term on November 21, 2007, but secured bail on November 23, 2007 and finally the High Court reduced the jail term to one year on December 20, 2008.

These cases  show that the rich and influential people either get bail after being accused of committing crime or are acquitted of all charges. There is nothing wrong on being released on bail.  Bail and not jail, they say, is the principle on which the system of legal jurisprudence is based.  If that is the principle, why is it that out of 3,85,135 jail population in the country on January 1, 2014, as many as 2,54,857 (66.2% of total inmates) were undertrial prisoners?   A majority of them were inside because they were either denied bail or failed to post bail bond.   A study done by the Law Commission of India on Law Relating to Arrest in November, 2000 showed that the percentage of undertrial prisoners in the country was unusually high and most of them were there because they were too poor to post bail or furnish securities.

What about the appeals, which in some cases are heard with speed, while in others it takes umpteen number of years for cases to be heard.    On 31.3.2014, about 2.79 crore cases were pending with different courts in the country at the end of the first quarter of 2014.  Out of these, 2,73,60,814 cases were pending with District and Subordinate Courts, 4,47,903 with High Courts and 65,970 with the Supreme Court.   A large number of cases pending with higher courts are appeal cases.

All these cases and statistics merely prove what the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had reported in July 2007: “An equally disturbing perception of the people is about the role the money and influence play in criminal justice administration. In common man’s perception, there are two standards of justice in the country, one for the rich and powerful and the other for the poor and underprivileged sections.”

The farcical working of the courts in this country with antiquated laws and procedures have been brilliantly shown in the recent national award winning Marathi film called “Court.” Despite all the material that exists in the reports of commissions and committees and also films (even those with catchphrase like ‘tareekh pe tareekh’), the justice system has remained one of the most neglected areas of governance in the country.  It appears that good governance has remained merely a political slogan.

While talking of politics, a side issue concerning Jayalalithaa’s case needs to be discussed.  Immediately after the acquittal order became public, the PM Narendra Modi was the first political leader to congratulate her on her release.  Whatever might have been the political considerations behind this move, a question that needs to be asked is: was it proper for the Prime Minister of the country to congratulate a person who till a few hours ago was a convict in a corruption case? The High Court’s judgement is not the end of the case. The Karnataka government or the petitioner can appeal against the judgement in the apex court.

When a congratulatory message is sent, it stands not merely for courteous behavior; it also indicates a feeling of sympathy for the person who is being congratulated.  Along with Jayalalithaa, the Prime Minister also appears to have heaved a sigh of relief on her being acquitted. It appears that he had carefully considered what Edmund Burke had advised long ago: “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”
   

I AM A CHARLIE BUT NOT A BAGA

I AM A CHARLIE BUT NOT A BAGA

The world witnessed two major incidents of terrorist violence during the first fortnight of this month.  The global response to the two tragedies was entirely different.

First, the incident that is very well known.  On Wednesday, the 7th of the month, two Islamic terrorists stormed the office of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, known for its cartoons lampooning established institutions and religions, including Islam and killed 12 staff members of the weekly. Later five more civilians lost their lives.  It led to one of the biggest deployment of security forces in France to hunt the killers and other terrorists holding hostages in a market.

The country mourned and received condolence messages from all over the world. There was a huge outpouring of sympathy for victims and anger against the deed and the doers.  The incident also gave rise to some racial hatred, with Twitter going viral with the message “kick them out”.

“I am Charlie” became a sign of defiance and shared aims.  The eventful week ended with an estimated 3.7 million people marching on the streets in a show of unity and solidarity. The world leaders from more than 40 countries, including the British Prime Minister, German Chancellor, EU President, Israeli Prime Minister, Palestinian President and Jordan King participated in the unity march, enthusing the French President to declare “Today, Paris is the capital of the world.”  The event became so big and important that the US administration felt sorry for not sending a higher ranking representative to the unity march.

Now, come to the second incident that occurred in Nigeria.  Boko Haram, a well known Jihadi insurgent group operating in that country, stormed a small town called Baga and indiscriminately killed civilians. According to Amnesty International, 2000 persons were killed in the attack that began on January 3, making it the “deadliest attack in the militant’s six-year insurgency.”  The town was virtually "wiped off the map."

The tragedy of Baga was thus much bigger that what happened in Paris.  Now, how did the world react?

Compared to Paris, the calamity of Baga was virtually ignored by the governments in almost all countries.  One did not hear of many condolence messages being received by the government or people in Nigeria.  In fact, the funniest part of the episode is that while the Nigerian President sent condolence message for the victims of Paris, he is alleged to have remained silent on the depredations of Boko Haram in Baga. The Nigerian government has failed to deal with the insurgent group effectively and has often been accused of hiding its failure by reducing the intensity of Boko Haram’s violent activities and the resultant loss of life and property suffered by its people.  This lack of transparency was also noticed in the handling of the incident of kidnapping of school girls. Does it, however, mean that the quality of state involvement in dealing with a crisis situation will determine how the rest of the world will react to it? It is for the governments in the advanced countries to answer this question.

Differences in the incidence and frequency of such incidents is probably an important factor in showing how the world will respond.  What happened in Paris was an occasional incident as compared to the violence by Boko Haram, which occurs often enough to be considered normal and routine.

Besides the governments, the international media also did not pay adequate heed to what happened at Baga.  If Paris saw a deluge of media coverage, Baga suffered a draught, which led someone to raise a very pertinent question: “Is one massacre more newsworthy than another?”  If one is guided by the scale of disaster suffered by two places, Baga should have received more media coverage than Paris, but that did not happen. Why?

 One explanation given is that Paris is easily accessible, has enough communication facilities and is less risky as compared to Baga.  This argument is not very convincing, as journalists have reported from more inaccessible and risky areas than Baga. In fact, some of the best media reportage has come from war zones and conflict ridden spots. We also talk of the present world as a globalised and a shrunk place. In such a world, one cannot regard any area as isolated and neglect one’s professional duty to cover events there.

How then does one explain the neglect by the international community and the media to the ugly tragedy of Baga as compared to the way they treated the event at Paris?  In my view, there are two main explanations.  One is that response to the violence in Paris was inspired by the lofty principle of freedom of expression, which is an important pillar on which the democratic world rests.  Any negligence towards upholding this principle shakes its very foundations. That is why all the debate that took place in different countries following the Paris massacre focused mainly on the need to espouse and defend the right to freedom of expression. No such exalted code triggered off the violence at Baga.

While the first explanation sounds admirable, the second one is somewhat base.  An unbiased examination leads to an unavoidable conclusion that an element of racism did play a part in shaping the response to the two events. As someone commented rightly: “Nigerians are black Africans. French are predominantly white Europeans. Somewhere in those two statements is an explanation as to why there was much more concern over the death of 17 people in Paris and zero concern over the deaths of 2000 people in Baga.” This bias was supplemented by the rich and poor or the strong and weak divide that existed between the two countries.

SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT ABOUT DIRECTOR CBI

Does Supreme Court’s Judgement Protect CBI’s Reputation?
                                                                   
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court, directing Ranjit Sinha to recuse himself from the 2G spectrum case, has evoked a mixed response.  While the order assures that the court will not allow the investigation of this important case to be compromised, it simultaneously refrains from explicitly stating detailed reasons for its order.  The idea of not doing so, in the words of the court, is twofold- to protect the faith in the institution and the reputation of the director. In reality, it does neither.
Over the last few years, we have heard enormous criticism of the way the CBI has been functioning, most of it coming not merely from the opposition parties but from the judiciary too.  The apex court did its first comprehensive examination of the organisation’s functioning in the Vineet Narain case in the nineties of the last century. In that case it pulled up the CBI for showing “inertia” to investigate offences involving influential persons and directed it “not to report the progress of the investigations to the person occupying the highest office in the political executive.”  The court also suggested institutional and other arrangements aimed at insulating the CBI from outside influences.

All this did not prove to be of much help as the government did not implement the judgement fully and honestly.  The CBI remained vulnerable to outside pressures and continued to face stringent criticism from the court in many cases for its biased functioning.  The court slammed the investigating agency for dilly dallying in disproportionate assets cases of Mayawati and Mulayam Singh during the last decade and more recently for dragging its feet in probing the 2G case and coal block allocations during 2006-09.  Ranjit Sinha was in charge of the CBI when the court called the agency a “caged parrot.”

In short, the reputation of the institution has been besmirched over a period of time and the conduct of Sinha in the present case tarnishes it further. The reticence of the court by withholding details produces two outcomes. One, it enables the director to brazen it out and remain glued to his chair. Two, it gives rise to an impression that there is considerable evidence of Sinha’s misdemeanors.  If it is revealed, it will hurt the credibility of the organisation and its director. By withholding information, the result achieved is the opposite of what the court wants.

The government too has been somewhat reluctant to take action. Though Sinha was appointed by UPA despite objections by the BJP, the silence of the ruling party during the few months when the diary at Sinha’s residence had become public knowledge is not understandable. The government always has powers to probe into suspected misbehavior and take disciplinary action.

Besides other rules and regulations, there is a Code of Behavior for police officers prescribed by the National Police Commission and accepted by the government.  Article 3 of this Code stipulates that no police officer shall conduct himself in such a manner as is “reasonably likely to bring discredit” to the “reputation of the police force or of the police service.” Ranjit Sinha’s conduct has definitely brought discredit to himself as well as to the organisation. There is no point in saying, as some retired directors of the CBI have done in the media that the court’s order brings only the chief of the agency into disrepute and not the organisation. The image of any establishment, particularly a hierarchical organisation like the police, is made or marred to a great extent by the policies, priorities and conduct of its chief.


While deliberating the coal scam status report, the apex court had said that their “first exercise will be to liberate CBI from political interference.”  This has not happened.  The government has always been reluctant to do this exercise earnestly.  Neither the UPA nor the present NDA has come out with any law or taken other measures that will make the CBI a professionally efficient and impartial organisation.  The danger is that this Ranjit Sinha episode may provide a handle to the government to further tighten its control over the investigating agency.  Arun Jaitley has already started talking of a “gap in law” that allows Ranjit Sinha to remain in chair and the government’s inability to do anything in this regard. The gap to which Jaitley is referring is contained in sub-section 4 B (i) of section 26 of the Central Vigilance Act of 2003, according to which Director, Delhi Special Police Establishment shall “continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years from the date on which he assumes office.” Mr. Jaitley does not talk about the other sub section of this section, which clearly suggests that the director can be transferred with the “previous consent of the Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4A” This is the committee that recommends names to government for selection to the post of director. The government could have convened a meeting of this committee if it wanted to remove Sinha from his job.

Instead of using this judgement to strengthen its control over the CBI, the government as a part of its declared objective of providing good governance must take steps to make this premier investigating agency a professionally efficient, objective and impartial organisation.  The first step necessary for this purpose is to replace the antiquated and inadequate piece of legislation called the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 that governs it presently with a law that enables it to function without fear or favour, while making it accountable for its performance and conduct.

COLONIAL STRUCTURE, FEUDAL VALUES

 The Kingly Abuse of Power in the Police

                       
The boast of J&K Deputy Inspector General’s son about his father being a “real king” because “last time he put his shoes himself was almost 15 years ago” has evoked angry reactions from many quarters.

This incident cannot be dismissed merely as a young man’s pompous and self satisfied response to how his father is enjoying the perks of his job.  This incident is painful because it reflects on an agonising reality that has to be accepted.

This reality has two parts.  One, the Dy I G, J & K is not the only one; there are many other ‘kings’ in  police forces in the country.  Only two years ago, a public interest litigation came up for hearing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on October 11, 2012, according to which, an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police of Vigilance Department was allegedly using as many as 31 police constables and head constables as “servants.”  The Punjab Government is reported to have conducted an inquiry on receiving notice from the High Court and then suspended the officer.  The orderly system exists and is often misused.

Two, the conditions under which the police constabulary work and live in this country are harsh, humiliating and oppressive. Their salaries are low; they do not have any fixed hours of work; their job is risky and stressful; family accommodation is not available to majority; they are constantly on the move and have very little to look forward to in terms of career advancement. While delivering the fourth Nani Palkhiwala Memorial lecture in Mumbai on October 5, 2009,  Mr. P. C Chidambaram, the then Union Home Minster said that the Police Constable, “who works for 12 to 14 hours a day throughout the year is the most abused” part of the machinery.  “Everyone believes that he can be bullied, or cajoled or bribed... he is the most reviled public servant.”  He further said that the “self-esteem of average policeman is very low … and this average Police Constable is a frontline force for the internal security.”

The lower ranks in the police complain that their self-esteem is affected by the behaviour of their officers.  There are two main grievances.  One, policemen posted at the residences of senior officers as orderlies are often required to attend to the personal chores of the seniors and their family members.  Two, the seniors’ treatment of the junior police officials is generally rough and rude.  Added to these is another important factor.  The general public also look down upon the police constable as a lowly creature. We have not given the policeman a status befitting his role in society.  The policeman has a low image and this leads to a low status, which in turn perpetuates that image.  Recently, there have been many incidents where lower ranked policemen have been abused and assaulted by politicians and  public.

 All these factors combine to lower the constabulary’s esteem in their own eyes and in the society’s. A policeman with low esteem cannot be a professionally efficient or a community friendly policeman.  As observed by the National Police Commission, the manner in which police personnel at lower levels behave towards public is largely conditioned by the manner in which they are themselves treated by their own higher officers within the force. In its Vth report, the Commission observed: “No amount of exhortation from the higher ranks calling for courteous behaviour towards the public would carry conviction with the subordinates if in day to day police work these subordinates are treated with scant courtesy and consideration by the supervisory levels within the police force.”

The managerial philosophy of the police is based on distrust of the lower ranks in the organisation.  In the pre- Independence days, the natives were not to be trusted.   The Police Act of 1861 used the words “inferior officers” for those occupying the lower ranks in the police. The phrase still exists in the form of Section 7 of the Police Act of 1861, which is titled “Appointment, dismissal etc. of inferior officers.” A distinction between seniors and juniors in a hierarchical force is always understandable, but to categorise a small minority of senior officers as superior and a large chunk of strength as inferior smacks of a set up that is authoritarian and of values that are feudal. A Police Act, which condemned a large chunk of its force as “inferior” could hardly be expected to build it up as a professional organisation.

Even after Independence, the mind set has not changed. We have retained the same management style after Independence. The gulf between the senior officers and lower ranks is still very wide.  As Mr. Ved Marwah, a senior retired police officer has mentioned: “Unfortunately, elitism within the superior ranks has only widened the gap between the field policemen and the supervising officers. The two inhabit very different worlds. A culture of distrust of the subordinate officer has developed over the years. This needs to change if the police are to be an accountable and professional force.”
In India, we have given ourselves a democratic structure of governance, but our values are highly feudal.  In so far as the police are concerned, they are exceedingly colonial in their structure as well as values.  This is one of the reasons why the police in this country have failed to develop self esteem and professional pride.

This article with some minor changes was published in the Indian Express dated November 1, 2014






 

SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT ON ENCOUNTER KILLINGS

Supreme Court's Judgement on Encounter Killings- Will it Solve the Problem?

In its judgement in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties versus the State of Maharastra delivered on September 23, 2014, the apex court prescribed various guidelines to be followed in dealing with encounter killings.  

 As the judgement itself says, these guidelines are based mostly on what the NHRC had suggested in the past. Some of the prescribed requirements are that an encounter killing should be investigated by the CID or a police station other than the one where the incident has occurred.   A magisterial inquiry into all cases of death must be held under Section 176 Cr P C. Delinquent officers must be brought to book through prompt disciplinary action and prosecution.  No out of turn promotion or awards should be given unless the gallantry of the concerned officers is established beyond doubt.   In cases of death in police encounter, compensation to the family should be provided under section 357- A of the Cr P C.

Will these guidelines ensure that fake encounter deaths do not occur?  One does not feel very optimistic on this count for two reasons. One, they did not have the desired effect in the past.  The NHRC had issued these guidelines on two occasions- once in March 1999 and later in December 2003.  The NHRC data itself shows that the number of fake encounters has continued to rise.  According to information given by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Parliament on August 4, 2009, as many as 346 fake encounter cases were registered by the NHRC during the three year period 2006 to July 09.  The NHRC report later chronicled 555 cases of alleged fake encounters in the country from April 1, 2009 till February 15, 2013.

Two, these guidelines become relevant after the encounter killing has taken place.  They do not address the basic question- why do such killings take place at all?

There are various reasons.  One is the support that the culture of encounters receives from different quarters.  No government or state can really claim to have a clean record.  As long as the incident remains hidden, neither the government nor the police department shows concern.  The hue and cry is raised only when the entire story comes out in public. It is the public scandal that offends; otherwise, to sin in secret is no sin at all.

It is not realized that the policy of fake encounters is wrong not only because it is contrary to law, but because it generally proves counter productive.  It does not solve the crime problem. You do not kill crime by killing criminals illegally.  What is worse is that this policy has the effect of criminalising the police force to an extent that they develop nexus with gangs and brutalising them to an extent that they do not hesitate to kill to get awards and promotions.

When controlling crime or dealing with law and order problems becomes important from political point of view, fake encounters get state encouragement and protection, with complete assurance of impunity granted in advance. Mostly, such assurance is implicit; but occasionally even clear directions are also given.  An example of this is the address given on April 30, 1998 by the then Chief Minister of UP Mr. Kalyan Singh.  The Chief Minister while addressing the state police officers at a law and order review meeting in Lucknow said: "I want performance, results. I want you to take a vow that you will create a dhamaka (explosion) in the state. If noted criminals can be liquidated in encounters, do it. If you take the life of one person who has taken the lives of 10 others, then people will praise you. And I am here to protect you."  The present Union Home Minister is also reported to have made such a call when he was the Chief Minister of UP in 2000. Fake encounters of terrorists in Punjab during the hey days of terrorism  were common and the central government knew about it, but deliberately overlooked how the police were trying to control the situation.

When Kalyan Singh said that people would praise the police if they followed his advice, he was not wide off the mark.  Fake encounters are sometimes supported by the public too, particularly when crime and violence increase in society and the system is seen as helpless and ineffective to provide a feeling of safety and security to the public.

An increase in crime and violence puts the police under tremendous pressures.  They are required to solve cases in quick time and when they fail to do so they are blamed by all.  Even if they succeed in solving cases and arresting the criminals, the judicial system is so tardy, cumbersome and inefficient that sometimes it fails to bring them to book. The public feel threatened and unsafe and the police feel beleaguered and harassed. This is when the fake encounter specialist takes charge and decides to tackle the problem his way- kill the criminals if you cannot kill crime.  The department in most cases is aware of what is happening.  As Mr. Julio Ribeiro has said: “A desperate leadership unwittingly leans on him to rid itself of public condemnation and criticism for not being able to tackle the criminals.”

The criminal justice administration has been one of the most neglected areas of governance in this country.  Price is being paid by citizens, not only in terms of increase in victimisation but also in terms of overall deterioration in the quality of life resulting from denial and delay in delivery of justice.
Besides effective implementation of Supreme Court’s guidelines, it is the functioning of the   criminal justice system that needs to be improved.  Once this happens, the number of encounter killings will come down.

ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT- NEED FOR RETHINKING

ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT- NEED FOR RETHINKING

The release of Irom Sharmila from custody and her subsequent arrest have again raised the issue whether the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 should continue to remain in areas like Manipur. The Chief Minister of J & K has been demanding for some time that his state, at least some parts of that province, can do without this special legislation. In Manipur, Irom Sharmila has been on hunger strike for the last fourteen years, asking for the repeal of this controversial and a definitely draconian law.

Neither the UPA nor the present government has paid any heed to these demands. What is so special about this law and why are all governments so reluctant to do away with this piece of legislation? The simple answer is that this law provides the authorities a short cut to assume certain repressive powers that are not normally available to them in a democratic society.

This law gives special powers to the commissioned as well as non commissioned officers of the armed forces to deal with law and order situation in an area, which has been notified by the central or state government as a “disturbed area.” Special powers include using force even to causing death; arresting people without warrant; destroying shelters, camps, structures, arms dumps etc and entering and searching premises without warrant. Neither this nor any other law defines what constitutes disturbed or dangerous area. It is thus left to the discretion of the concerned authorities to decide that the law and order situation in an area in a state has become disturbed or dangerous enough not only to call for the deployment of the army but even to confer some special authoritarian powers on them.
The Act was originally intended to be a short term measure, but it has remained in force for decades in states like Manipur. Despite tremendous public agitation in that state against this law, the central government has declined to repeal it, even though there is considerable evidence that it has led to gross violations of human rights in that area. A number of committees appointed from time to time, like Jeevan Reddy committee, Santosh Hegde Committee etc have clearly indicted the armed forces for gross violations of human rights of citizens in Manipur and recommended the repeal of this exceedingly harsh law.

An argument often given by the government, particularly the army, in support of retaining this law is that the Supreme Court upheld its constitutional validity in its judgement delivered in 1998 in Naga Peoples’ Movement of Human Rights vs. the Union of India case. A law may be constitutionally valid, but that is no guarantee against its misuse. Pathribal fake encounter case of March 2000 and the alleged rape and murder of Thangjam Manorama Devi, a 34-year-old Manipuri woman in 2004 by armed forces personnel, are only two of the many examples of such misuse.

Another argument that the army often makes is that the majority of complaints of human rights violations filed against them are false. The problem with this type of argument is that most complaints are investigated and tried by the army itself. The army has shown considerable reluctance to hand over such cases to the civil authorities or courts. It is only at the intervention
of higher courts that the army has been forced to hand over some cases to outside investigating agencies like the CBI.

The Act provides protection to armed forces’ personnel working under it, as no prosecution can be launched against them without sanction from the central government. The civil rights activists have often complained that it provides impunity to armed forces personnel. The argument is not very convincing as even if this provision is removed from the Act, members of the armed forces will continue to be covered by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code that debars the courts from taking any cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by them without sanction from the central government.

The state police forces, particularly their armed components, occasionally complain that they face the initial burnt of law and order situation in disturbed areas or even insurgency, without getting the powers and protection that AFSPA provides to the central armed forces in such situations. This happens even in areas where armed forces of the union work in conjunction with the state law and order authorities. The state police forces feel that they are definitely at a disadvantage in such situations.

The central government has not only shown lack of will or courage to dispense with this Act, but even blocked full debate on this subject of enormous public concern by suppressing Justice Reddy’s report. Last year, the then union finance minister P Chidambaram was brazen enough to express the helplessness of his government to revoke the law because the army was not willing to do so. This is a country where the army is supposed to work under the civilian control and decisions like imposing or revoking a particular law have to be taken by the government and not by the army. Mr. Chidambaram should have found a less phony argument to explain the central government’s reluctance to withdraw the law.

The army has been deployed to deal with serious law and order situations in this country on numerous occasions. In most instances, it has successfully dealt with such problems without having the powers or protection of AFSPA. It is therefore time the government showed willingness to assess objectively the need to retain this law. It may consider keeping this law in operation in states affected by insurgency or terrorism, particularly when the trouble is emanating from across the border. However, it may revoke the law in areas that are comparatively peaceful. If the government can think of controlling Maoist violence in some areas of the country without invoking AFSPA, why can’t it do the same in areas like Manipur?

This article with some minor changes was published in the Indian Express dated August 26, 2014 under the heading " Rethinking Impunity"