Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act
INSAF
A124/6
Katwaria Sarai
New Delhi
110016
Tel:
+91-11-26517814
Email: insaf@vsnl.com
URL: http://www.insafindia.org
Contents:
The Armed
Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 (AFSPA) is one of the most draconian
legislations used by the Indian rulers to enslave and oppress peoples’ under
the garb of fighting separation. Under this Act, security forces are given
unrestricted and unaccounted power to carry out their operations, once an area
is declared disturbed. Even a non-commissioned officer is granted the right to
shoot to kill based on mere suspicion that it is necessary to do so in order to
"maintain the public order". It has been going on for decades in our
own North East states & Kashmir!
The
enforcement of the AFSPA has resulted in innumerable incidents of arbitrary
detention, torture, rape, and looting by security personnel. This legislation
is sought to be justified by the Government of India, on the plea that it is
required to stop the North East states from seceding from the Indian Union.
There is a strong sentiment movement for self-determination, which precedes the
formation of the Indian Union.
The demand for
repeal of AFSPA once again got momentum in the backdrop of series of incidents
that unfolded in Manipur after the rape and killing of Ms Thangajam Manorama by
Assam Rifles blessed with special powers drawn from the said Act. As a result
of the protests, the government of India merely budged a bit on 2 November 2004
agreeing to form an expert group to look into the "legal, constitutional
and moral" aspects of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). While
the military and a section of the ruling class continues to question even this
minor move by the government of India, they fail to answer why the AFSPA has
not been able to resolve a single insurgency problem since its adoption in
1958.
The present
publication reproduces the web material posted by Naga Peoples’ Movement for
Human Rights (NPMHR), South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC),
Amnesty International, etc.
We hope that
this publication will inform the social activists about the grave human rights’
situation in our country and the need to express solidarity with the oppressed
peoples and further the struggle to defend democracy.
INSAF
1. An Appeal to Reason[1]
In Post-9/11
scenario the countries in the first world such as Britain and America, which
contributed significantly in the modern definition of liberal democracy are busy
waging wars and promulgating draconian laws in the name of protecting
democracy. It is heartening to see that in a relatively backward country such
as India, not only the human rights and civil liberties movement but even
mainstream political parties are resisting and creating public opinion against
such acts.
The
significance of the efforts being made for the repeal of POTA in strengthening
and broadening democracy in the country can never be overstated. Yet it is time
to attract the indulgence of these forces against similar draconian laws and
acts that are in force in the relatively marginal regions of the country.
One such act is the Armed Forces Special Powers Act
that has been in operation in the states of the Northeastern region of the
country since 1958. Purportedly aimed at fighting insurgency, the act has
proved singularly ineffective. However, it has not only led to de facto
implementation of emergency in the areas of its implementation but also, the
suspension of even the fundamental rights of common citizens, including their
right to life.
Why Armed Forces Special Powers Act is one of the
most pernicious draconian laws?
Draconian laws
are antithetical to modern democracy since they overturn the fundamental tenets
of modern jurisprudence on which democracy rests viz., a person is presumed to
be innocent till proven guilty. The genre of draconian laws thereby makes it
difficult for persons booked under it to redress their grievances and get
relief, such as bail. It grants extra-ordinary power to the investigating
agencies (police etc.) to elicit confessions etc. Thus, the act empower the
investigating agencies to easily frame a person whom they suspect to be guilty.
Provisions of
the Armed Forces Special Powers Act are far more severe. The provisions of the
Act provide special powers to the Governor, whereby they can on their own
discretion (without consulting the duly elected Chief Minister), by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare the whole or part of the state or
union territory to be a disturbed area.
Bypassing duly elected and representative political authority is
tantamount to de facto imposition of emergency.
Unlike other
draconian laws, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act does not stop at providing
special powers to the investigating agency to elicit confession and to conduct
search and arrest operations. It in fact provides the investigating agency with
absolute powers whereby, even a havildar “if he is of the opinion that it is
necessary” to fire or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, can
make use of the provisions of the act, thereby, harming the democratic fabric
of the country.
More
disturbingly, even while it provides the Armed Forces with such absolute
powers, it also provides them with immunity from any legal accountability. Even
though the acts are in operation in the states and union territories of the
country, the elected governments of these areas cannot initiate legal
proceedings (let alone administrative action) against the Armed Forces without
prior sanction of the Central government. (For
details of the provisions of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, see Appendix
I)
Controversy
around the Act.
Right since
its inception the act has had a controversial career. It has elicited
impassioned responses in its support and opposition both within and outside the
government. When the Armed Forces Special Powers Bill was first tabled in the
Parliament the Government had supported it as a necessary piece of legislation
to fight militancy in the Naga Hills.
There were,
however, serious objections to its extreme provisions. Parliamentarian Mr.
Dhenkanal Mohanty while supporting the idea that the Naga hostility must be
settled quickly had opined that the act had provisions that were not related to
the concern of quelling the rebellious Nagas. He pointed out to the fact that
prohibiting the state governments from initiating legal proceedings against the
Army takes away the right of the states to seek constitutional remedy given
under article 32(1). As per the constitution, this right shall not be suspended
without declaration of emergency.
Parliamentarian
Dr. Chingleput Krishnaswami opposed the act since it violated the rights of the
states provided under the concurrent list. While not opposing the requisitioning
to Army to quell disturbance, he disputed the provisions of the act since it
violated the right of the states to call the Army if they so desired. The Armed
Forces (Special Powers) Act provided center with the absolute power to send
Army for civilian aid. Thus the question was not of using army to quell
disturbance. The moot question that the provisions of the act raised was that
now all power was given to the Army and the civil authority divested of all
control.
Parliamentarian
Mr. Jaipal Singh opposed the act on the ground that it seeks military solution
for a question that is essentially political in nature. Just because the act
was aimed at what the government termed as a small section of Naga hostiles, it
does not make an extraordinary piece of legislation, martial law into an
ordinary law.
Can
there be a draconian law with a human face?
Government in
order to ally the fears of parliamentarians such as the three worthies
mentioned above and human rights activists has sought to justify draconian acts
by promulgating some mandatory safeguards. For instance, POTA is a more humane
version of TADA, or so we were told till the witch-hunt of Vaiko happened.
In a similar
vein, the Armed Forces Special Powers Bill was sought to be justified by the
Hon’ble Home Minister Mr. G. B. Pant on the grounds that it was aimed at a very
small section of hostiles and was applicable to a very clearly demarcated area
that was declared as disturbed. Both these checks have proven to be imperfect
since the act was extended, not only to almost the entire Northeastern region
but also, to Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir. More alarmingly the prime targets
of the act did not remain a small band of hostiles but the bulk of the
non-combatant civilians. (See Appendix II)
Blatant targeting
of civilians, human right activists and regular trespasses on civilian
institutions soon made this act the rallying point of all human rights movement
in the north eastern region. Army atrocities during operation Blue Bird
(July1987) in the Senapati district of Manipur contributed in the formation of
the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights; formations of Mass and COHR can
also be traced back to Army excesses. There are also several individual and
equally heroic oppositions to the act. The brave but extremely tragic story of
Irom Chanu Sharmila needs to be mentioned – a young girl who instead of falling
in love as most people at that age do, is sitting on a hunger strike for the
last several months demanding repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Acts.
Attempts were
also made to challenge the constitutionality of the act in the Supreme Court.
The court in its wisdom chose to declare the law to be good but sought to
impose some checks. It cautioned that the act must not be imposed for an
indefinite period. However, immunity to Armed Forces built into the act
rendered these checks useless. The act continues to exist uninterrupted even in
areas where militancy has ceased to exist or is currently maintaining peace.
Civilians continue to be harassed by the Army under the provisions of the Armed
Forces Special Powers Act. (See Appendix III)
Immunity
provides unlimited powers to the Army without any accountability. The adage,
absolute power corrupts absolutely, has never been proven more correct. Armed
Forces in the Northeastern region have become so used to operate under
unfettered power that they assume that power even in areas such as Arunachal
Pradesh, where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is not in operation. (See
Appendix IV)
Has
the Act Suceeded in checking Insurgency?
Since its
inception the Armed Forces Special Powers Bill (subsequently Act) aims at
empowering the Army with special powers to bring normalcy in an area disturbed
by insurgency. While introducing the Armed Forces Special Powers Bill Hon’ble
Home Minister Mr. G. B. Pant had argued, “…owing to the hostile activities of
certain misguided section of Nagas, Government has to take special measures to
restore normalcy.” This has become the raison d’etre of the Bill and it
subsequent amendments.
Yet the Act
has singularly failed in its stated objectives. In spite of the act, militancy
has not only continued but also thrived. When the act had been promulgated and
imposed on the whole of Assam and Manipur, there was only one militant organization
that was based in the Naga areas. Now militancy has spread in the entire
original region of its implementation with several militant organizations
functioning in the area.
Spread of
militancy lie not so much in the imperfect implementation of the Act as in the
imperfect nature of the Act. Parliamentarian Dr. Chingleput Krishnaswami had
already indicated that in the Act, all power was given to the Army and the
civil authority divested of all control. In fact it weakened not only civil
authority but also civil space.
Operating
under absolute immunity the Army brooked no dissent even when peaceful and
democratic. Human Rights activists such as Shelly Charia, Parag Das etc., were
found murdered in mysterious circumstances. Prominent journalists such as Ajit
Bhuian were subject to humiliating searches and third degree torture. The Army
intimidated Mr. Max Phazang, the magistrate presiding over the Oinam case in
Tamenlong. Even Chief Ministers, ministers and senior members of bureaucracy
have not escaped their ire.
Undermining of
the civil space, that is a direct consequence of immunity extended to the army,
has eroded the available space for democratic and peaceful dissent. The Armed
Forces Special Powers Act, therefore, rather than curbing political disturbances
has actually added to it.
The
Act adversely impacts on India’s International standing.
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act
came up for discussion in the UN to determine if it were in accordance with the
provisions of Human Rights Covenant. The discussion was conducted by the Human
Rights Committee consisting of 18 experts. It is instructive to see that the
concerns of the experts on Human Rights echoed the concerns of the Indian
Parliamentarians in the parliamentary debate in 1958.
The experts on human rights were concerned on the
absolute powers given to the Army without any checks. They were concerned that
the act did not provide for adequate mechanism for redressal. They were
concerned that the act that had already lasted for 33 years in the year 1991
created a condition of continuous and perpetual emergency. The experts were
alarmed that the act had provisions that empowered the Army to resort to
shooting to kill on mere suspicion and wondered if that was responsible for
large-scale political deaths in the areas in which the act was in operation.
Lastly, the experts were worried if the act did not have any adverse impact of
the structure of the Indian Constitution.
All the experts mentioned approvingly of Indian
democracy and its role in International initiatives such as NAM. In the same
breath they asked if acts such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act enhanced
or eroded India’s international standing. In an era where human rights is fast
becoming a tool to extract economic concession, the continued existence of
draconian measures such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act need to be
evaluated.
We have endeavored to demonstrate
that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is a bad law since it has failed in
its stated basic objective. It has, however, adversely impacted on the
center-state relationship in the Northeastern region of the country. It has
given all control to the Armed Forces while civil administration and civil
space have undergone constant erosion. It has lead to the de facto imposition
of emergency in the areas of its application that has resulted in a serious
loss of life, limb and property of common citizens. Indeed, on the consequences
of the act, the prediction of Shri. L. Achaw Singh has been prophetic:
“ … I fail to understand why the military authorities
are to be invested with special powers. I have found that these military
authorities have always committed excesses in many cases, especially in the
subdivisions of Kohima and Mokokchung. In such a situation, I do not like that
the officers should be invested with such special powers. Recently, such an
incident took place in the Headquarters of the North Cachar and Mikir Hills
District. Instead of rounding up the hostile Nagas, some military personnel
trespassed into the houses of some retired tribal officials and committed rape
on the widow. So, such things have deteriorated the situation. The tribal
people have risen against the military people there. It is, therefore,
dangerous to invest the military authorities with extraordinary powers of
killing and of arrest without warrant and of house breaking. I have got reports
of the operations of the armed forces in these tribal sub-division of Manipur,
especially in the sub-division of Tamenglong where these armed forces occupied
the religious institutions, in spite of the protest of the local people. Most
of them are Christians there and hold their Churches sacred. But these armed
forces would occupy these institutions. There are schools and the armed forces
would forcibly occupy them, but then, in spite of the protests of the people,
they encroached upon and trespassed into the houses.
“Then, very often, persecutions and
also harassments would take place. I would rather request the Government not to
encourage such things in the tribal areas. They would wound the religious
sensibilities of the people there and would create more difficulties.
“This
piece of legislation is an anti-democratic measure and also a reactionary one.
Instead of helping to keep the law and order position in these areas, if they
declare some areas as disturbed areas, it would cause more repression, more
misunderstanding and more of unnecessary persecutions in the tribal areas. This
is a black law. This is also an act of provocation on the part of the
Government. How can we imagine these military officers should be allowed to
shoot to kill and without warrant arrest and search? This is a lawless law.
There are various provisions in the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure
Code and they can easily deal with the law and order situation in these parts.
I am afraid that this measure will only sever the right of the people and
harass innocent folks and deteriorate the situation.” (Lok Sabha Debates Vol 18
(2), 11th August to 22nd August 1958.)
Therefore, we appeal to the sanity of the Indian policy makers and the
Indian people to repeal this draconian Act.
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act[2]
: An Overview
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
As the great Himalayan range dividing South and
Central Asia runs down the east, it takes a southward curve and splits into
lower hill ranges. The hills are punctuated by valleys and the valleys are
washed by the rivers that drain into to the Bay of Bengal. Waves of people settled
in these blue hills and green valleys at various times in history. They brought
with them cultures and traditions. The new interacted with the old and evolved
into the unique cultural mosaic that characterizes the region.
Through the centuries, these hills and valleys have
bridged South, South East, and Central Asia. On today's geo-political map, a
large part of the original region constitutes the seven states of the Republic
of India, but its political, economic and socio-cultural systems have always been
linked with South East Asia. The great Hindu and Muslim empires that reigned
over the Indian sub-continent never extended east of the Bhramaputra river.
India's British colonizers were the first to break
this barrier. In the early 19th century, they moved in to check the Burmese
expansion into today's Manipur and Assam. The British, with the help of the
then Manipur King, Gambhir Singh, crushed the Burmese imperialist dream and the
treaty of Yandabo was signed in 1828. Under this treaty, Assam became a part of
British India and the British continued to influence the political affairs of
the region.
This undue interference eventually led to the bloody
Anglo- Manipuri conflict of 1891. The British reaffirmed their position but
were cognizant of the ferocious spirit of independence of these people and did
not administer directly but only through the King.
It was during the Second World War, when the Japanese
tried to enter the Indian sub-continent through this narrow corridor, that the
strategic significance of the region to the Indian armed forces was realised.
With the bombing of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a disenchanted Japanese had to
retreat from Imphal and Kohima fronts, however the importance of control over
the region subsequently remained a priority for the Government of India.
With the end of the war, the global political map was
changed over night. As the British were preparing to leave Asia, the Political
Department of the British Government planned to carve out a buffer state
consisting of the Naga Hills, Mikir Hills, Sadiya Area, Balipara Tract,
Manipur, Lushai Hills, Khasi and Hills in Assam, as well as the Chin Hills and
the hills of northern Burma. The impending departure of the British created
confusion and turmoil over how to fill the political vacuum they would leave
behind. Ultimately, the various territories were parceled out to Nehru's India,
Jinnah's Pakistan, Aung Sang's Burma and Mao's China according to strategic
requirements. As expected, there were some rumblings between the new Asiatic
powers on who should get how much - India and Burma over Kabow valley, India
and East Pakistan over Chittagong Hill Tracts, and India and China over the
North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), present day Arunachal Pradesh.
Compromises were made, and issues were finally
settled in distant capitals, to the satifaction of the new rulers. The people
who had been dwelling in these hills and valleys for thousands of years were
systematically excluded from the consultation process. The Indian share of the
British colonial cake in this region constitutes the present "Seven
Sisters" states of the North-East.
Over the years, thanks to the British, the advent of
western education and contact with new ideas brought about the realization that
the old ways had to give way to the new. Indigenous movements evolved as the
people aspired to a new social and political order. For example, in the ancient
Kingdom of Manipur, under the charismatic leadership of Hijam Irabot, a strong
popular democratic movement against feudalism and colonialism was raging. After
the departure of the British, the Kingdom of Manipur was reconstituted as a
constitutional monarchy on modern lines by passing the Manipur Constitution
Act, 1947.
Elections were held under the new constitution. A
legislative assembly was formed. In 1949, Mr V P Menon, a senior representative
of the Government of India, invited the King to a meeting on the pretext of
discussing the deteriorating law and order situation in the state at Shillong.
Upon his arrival, the King was allegedly forced to sign under duress the merger
agreement. The agreement was never ratified in the Manipur Legislative
Assembly. Rather, the Assembly was dissolved and Manipur was kept under the
charge of a Chief Commissioner. There were protests, but the carrot-and-stick
policy launched by the Indian Government successfully suppressed any
opposition.
At the beginning of the century, the inhabitants of
the Naga Hills, which extend across the Indo-Burmese border, came together
under the single banner of Naga National Council (NNC), aspiring for a common
homeland and self-governance. As early as 1929, the NNC petitioned the Simon
Commission, which was examining the feasibility of future of self-governance of
India. The Naga leaders were adamantly against Indian rule over their people
once the British pulled out of the region. Mahatma Gandhi publicly announced
that the Nagas had every right to be independent. His assertion was based on
his belief in non-violence, he did not believe in the use of force or an
unwilling union.
Under the Hydari Agreement signed between NNC and
British administration, Nagaland was granted protected status for ten years,
after which the Nagas would decide whether they should stay in the Union or not.
However, shortly after the British withdrew, independent India proclaimed the
Naga Territory as part and parcel of the new Republic.
The NNC proclaimed Nagaland's independence. In
retaliation, Indian authorities arrested the Naga leaders. An armed struggle
ensued and there were large casualties on either side. The Armed Forces Special
Powers Act is the product of this tension.
In 1975, some Naga leaders held talks with the
Government of India which resulted in what is known as the Shillong Accord. The
Naga leaders who did not agree with the Shillong accord formed the National
Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and continue to fight for what they
call," Naga sovereignty".
Much of this historical bloodshed could have been avoided
if the new India had lived up to the democratic principles enshrined in its
Constitution and respected the rights of the nationalities it had taken within
its borders. But in the over-zealous efforts to integrate these people into the
"national mainstream", based on the dominant brahminical Aryan
culture, much destruction has been done to the indigenous populations.
Culturally, the highly caste ridden, feudal society
is totally incompatible with the ethics of North-East cultures which are by and
large egalitarian. To make matters even worse, the Indian leaders found it
useful to club these ethnic groups with the adivasis (indigenous peoples) of
the sub-continent, dubbing them "scheduled tribes". As a result, in
the casteist Indian social milieu, indigenous peoples are stigmatized by higher
castes.
The languages of the North-East are of the Tibeto-
Chinese family rather than the Indo-Aryan or Dravidian. Until the recent Eighth
Schedule of the Indian Constitution, none of the Tibeto- Chinese languages were
recognized as Indian languages. The predominantly mongoloid features of the
people of the North-East is another barrier to cultural assimilation.
Politically dependent, the North East is being
economically undermined; the traditional trade routes with South East Asia and
Bangladesh have been closed. It was kept out of the Government of India's
massive infrastructural development in the first few five-year-plans.
Gradually, the region has become the Indian capitalist's hinterland, where
local industries have been reduced to nothing and the people are now entirely
dependent on goods and businesses owned predominantly by those from the Indo-
Gangetic plains. The economic strings of this region are controlled by these,
in many cases, unscrupulous traders.
All the states of the North-East are connected to
India by the "chicken's neck", a narrow corridor between Bangladesh
and Bhutan. At partition, the area was cut off from the nearest port of
Chittagong, in what is now Bangladesh, reducing traffic to and from the region
to a trickle. The states in the region are largely unconnected to India' vast
rail system.
India freely exploits the natural resources of the
North-East. Assam produces one-fourth of all the petroleum for India, yet it is
processed outside of Assam so the state does not receive the revenues. Manipur
is 22% behind the national average for infrastructural development, and the
entire North-Eastern region is 30% behind the rest of India.
Observers have pointed out that "...it is clear
that in the North East, insurgency and underdevelopment have been closely
linked; in such a situation strong-arm tactics will only help to further
alienate the people."
The shifting demographic balance due to large-scale
immigration from within and outside the country is another source of tension.
The indigenous people fear that they will be outnumbered by outsiders in their
own land. Laborers from Bihar and Bengal who live under rigidly feudal,
casteist socio-economic conditions in their states are ready to do all kinds of
menial jobs at much lower wages. As they pour in, more and more local laborers
are being edged out of their jobs. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh and
Nepal is also percieved as a threat. In Tripura, the indigenous population has
been reduced to a mere 28% of the total population of the state because of
large scale immigration from then East Pakistan and now Bangladesh.
In Assam, a similar fear of " immigrant
invasion" was at the root of a student movement in the early eighties. The
student leaders formed a political party called the Assam Gana Parisad (AGP)
and contested state elections and won. In 1984, the Assam Accord was signed
with the Central Government. However, the provisions of the Accord were never
implemented. The failure of the AGP to bring about change in the state of Assam
fostered the growth of the armed and overtly seccessionist United Liberation
Front of Assam (ULFA).
In the Lushai hills of Assam in the early sixties, a
famine broke out. A relief team cried out for help from the Government of
India. But there was little help. The relief team organized themselves into the
Mizo National Front (MNF) and called for an armed struggle, " to liberate
Mizoram from Indian colonialiasm." In February 1966, armed militant groups
captured the town of Aizawl and took possession of all government offices. It
took the Indian army one week to recapture the town. The army responded
viciously with air raids. This is the only place in India where the Indian
Security Forces actually aerially bombed its own civilian population. The armed
forces compelled people to leave their homes and dumped them on the roadside to
set up new villages, so that the armed forces would be able to better control
them. This devastated the structure of Mizo society. In 1986, the Mizo Accord
was signed between the MNF and the Government of India. This accord was
identical to the Shilong Accord made with the Nagas earlier. The MNF agreed to
work within the Indian Constitution and to renounce violence.
The Government of India's primary interest in the
North East was strategic, and so was its response to the problems. A series of
repressive laws were passed by the Government of India in order to deal with
this uprising. In 1953, the Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous
District) Regulation Act was passed. It was applicable to the then Naga Hills
and Tuensang districts. It empowered the Governor to impose collective fines,
prohibit public meetings and and detain anybody without a warrant.
On 22 May 1958, a mere 12 days after the Budget
Session of Parliament was over, the Armed Forces (Assam-Manipur) Special Powers
Ordinance was passed. A bill was introduced in the Monsoon session of
Parliament that year. Amongst those who cautioned against giving such blanket
powers to the Army included the then Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, (Upper
House of the Indian Parliament), Mr P N Sapru. In a brief discussion that
lasted for three hours in the Lok Sabha and for four hours in the Rajya Sabha,
Parliament approved the Armed Forces (Assam- Manipur) Special Powers Act with
retrospective from 22 May 1958.
THE ACT AND ITS PROVISIONS
Section 1: This section states the name of the Act
and the areas to which it extends (Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland,
Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram).
Section 2: This section sets out the definition of
the Act, but leaves much un-defined. Under part (a) in the 1972 version, the
armed forces were defined as "the military and Air Force of the Union so
operating". In the 1958 version of the Act the definition was of the
"military forces and the air forces operating as land forces". In the
Lok Sabha Debates which led to the passing of the original Act, Mr Naushir
Bharucha commented, "that probably means that the Government very
mercifully has not permitted the air forces to shoot or strafe the area ... or
to bomb." The Minister of Home Affairs did not confirm this
interpretation, but certainly "acting as land forces" should rule out
the power to resort to aerial bombardment. Nevertheless, in 1966, the Air Force
in Mizoram did resort to aerial bombardment.
Section 2(b) defines a "disturbed area" as
any area declared as such under Clause 3 (see discussion below). Section 2(c)
states that all other words not defined in the AFSPA have the meanings assigned
to them in the Army Act of 1950.
Section 3: This section defines "disturbed
area" by stating how an area can be declared disturbed. It grants the
power to declare an area disturbed to the Central Government and the Governor
of the State, but does not describe the circumstances under which the authority
would be justified in making such a declaration. Rather, the AFSPA only
requires that such authority be "of the opinion that whole or parts of the
area are in a dangerous or disturbed condition such that the use of the Armed
Forces in aid of civil powers is necessary." The vagueness of this
definition was challenged in Indrajit Barua v. State of Assam case. The court
decided that the lack of precision to the definition of a disturbed area was
not an issue because the government and people of India understand its meaning.
However, since the declaration depends on the satisfaction of the Government
official, the declaration that an area is disturbed is not subject to judicial
review. So in practice, it is only the government's understanding which
classifies an area as disturbed. There is no mechanism for the people to
challenge this opinion. Strangely, there are acts which define the term more
concretely. In the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976, an area may be
declared disturbed when "a State Government is satisfied that (i) there
was, or (ii) there is, in any area within a State extensive disturbance of the
public peace and tranquility, by reason of differences or disputes between
members of different religions, racial, language, or regional groups or castes
or communities, it may ... declare such area to be a disturbed area." The
lack of precision in the definition of a disturbed area under the AFSPA
demonstrates that the government is not interested in putting safeguards on its
application of the AFSPA.
The 1972 amendments to the AFSPA extended the power
to declare an area disturbed to the Central Government. In the 1958 version of
the AFSPA only the state governments had this power. In the 1972 Lok Sabha
debates it was argued that extending this power to the Central Government would
take away the State's authority. In the 1958 debates the authority and power of
the states in applying the AFSPA was a key issue. The Home Minister had argued
that the AFSPA broadened states' power because they could call in the military
whenever they chose. The 1972 amendment shows that the Central Government is no
longer concerned with the state's power. Rather, the Central Government now has
the ability to overrule the opinion of a state governor and declare an area
disturbed. This happened in Tripura, when the Central Government declared
Tripura a disturbed area, over the opposition of the State Government.
In the 1972 Lok Sabha debates, Mr S D Somasundaram
pointed out that there was no need to extend this power to the Central
Government, since the President had "the power to intervene in a disturbed
State at any time" under the Constitution. This point went unheeded and
the Central Government retains the power to apply the AFSPA to the areas it
wishes in the Northeast.
Section 4: This section sets out the powers granted
to the military stationed in a disturbed area. These powers are granted to the
commissioned officer, warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer, only a
jawan (private) does not have these powers. The Section allows the armed forces
personnel to use force for a variety of reasons.
The army can shoot to kill, under the powers of
section 4(a), for the commission or suspicion of the commission of the
following offenses: acting in contravention of any law or order for the time
being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more
persons, carrying weapons, or carrying anything which is capable of being used
as a fire-arm or ammunition. To justify the invocation of this provision, the
officer need only be "of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the
maintenance of public order" and only give "such due warning as he
may consider necessary".
The army can destroy property under section 4(b) if
it is an arms dump, a fortified position or shelter from where armed attacks
are made or are suspected of being made, if the structure is used as a training
camp, or as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders.
The army can arrest anyone without a warrant under
section 4(c) who has committed, is suspected of having committed or of being
about to commit, a cognisable offense and use any amount of force
"necessary to effect the arrest".
Under section 4(d), the army can enter and search
without a warrant to make an arrest or to recover any property, arms,
ammunition or explosives which are believed to be unlawfully kept on the
premises. This section also allows the use of force necessary for the search.
Section 5: This section states that after the
military has arrested someone under the AFSPA, they must hand that person over
to the nearest police station with the "least possible delay". There
is no definition in the act of what constitutes the least possible delay. Some
case-law has established that 4 to 5 days is too long. But since this provision
has been interpreted as depending on the specifics circumstances of each case,
there is no precise amount of time after which the section is violated. The
holding of the arrested person, without review by a magistrate, constitutes
arbitrary detention.
Section 6: This section establishes that no legal
proceeding can be brought against any member of the armed forces acting under
the AFSPA, without the permission of the Central Government. This section
leaves the victims of the armed forces abuses without a remedy.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act contravenes both
Indian and International law standards. This was exemplified when India
presented its second periodic report to the United Nations Human Rights
Committee in 1991. Members of the UNHRC asked numerous questions about the
validity of the AFSPA, questioning how the AFSPA could be deemed constitutional
under Indian law and how it could be justified in light of Article 4 of the
ICCPR. The Attorney General of India relied on the sole argument that the AFSPA
is a necessary measure to prevent the secession of the North Eastern states. He
said that a response to this agitation for secession in the North East had to
be done on a "war footing." He argued that the Indian Constitution,
in Article 355, made it the duty of the Central Government to protect the
states from internal disturbance, and that there is no duty under international
law to allow secession.
This reasoning exemplifies the vicious cycle which
has been instituted in the North East due to the AFSPA. The use of the AFSPA
pushes the demand for more autonomy, giving the peoples of the North East more
reason to want to secede from a state which enacts such powers and the
agitation which ensues continues to justify the use of the AFSPA from the point
of view of the Indian Government.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY SAHRDC
The only way to guarantee that the human rights
abuses perpetrated by the armed forces in the North East cease is to both
repeal the AFSPA and remove the military from playing a civil role in the area.
Indeed with 50% of the military forces in India acting in a domestic role,
through internal security duties, there is a serious question as to whether the
civil authority's role is being usurped. As long as the local police are not
relied on they will not be able to assume their proper role in law enforcement.
The continued presence of the military forces prevents the police force from
carrying out its functions. This also perpetuates the justification for the
AFSPA.
Among the recommendations made by the Working Group
on Arbitrary Detention, from 1994 was the statement that "Governments
which have been maintaining states of emergency in force for many years should
lift them, limit their effects or review the custodial measures that affect
many persons, and in particular should apply the principle of proportionality
rigorously."
The National Human Rights Commission is now reviewing
the AFSPA. Hopefully, the NHRC will find that the AFSPA is unconstitutional and
will submit this finding to the Supreme Court to influence its review of the
pending cases. However, the NHRC has a very limited role. In past cases, the
Supreme Court has not welcomed such intervention by the NHRC. This was evident
when the NHRC attempted to intervene in the hearing against the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
If the AFSPA is not repealed, it must at a bare
minimum comply with international law and Indian law standards. This means the
powers to shoot to kill under section 4(a) must be unequivocally revoked.
Arrests must be made with warrants and no force should be allowed in the search
and seizure procedures. Section 5 should clearly state that persons arrested
under the Act are to be handed over to the police within twenty-four hours.
Section 6 should be completely repealed so that individuals who suffer abuses
at the hands of the security forces may prosecute their abusers.
Moreover, the definition of key phrases, especially
"disturbed area" must be clarified. The declaration that an area is
disturbed should not be left to the subjective opinion of the Central or State
Government. It should have an objective standard which is judicially reviewable.
Moreover, the declaration that an area is disturbed should be for a specified
amount of time, no longer than six months. Such a declaration should not
persist without legislative review.
Armed forces should not be allowed to arrest or carry
out any procedure on suspicion alone. All their actions should have an
objective basis so that they are judicially reviewable. This will also assist
those who file suit against the security forces.
All personnel acting in a law enforcement capacity
should be trained according to the UN Code of Conduct for law enforcement
personnel. The instructions and training given to the armed forces should be
available to the public. Complete transparency should be established so that a
public accountability is rendered possible.
Having the armed forces comply with the Indian CrPC
would also be a bare minimum. The CrPC itself does not fully comply with
international human rights standards, so making the AFSPA comply on its face
with the CrPC provisions for the use of minimal force, arrest, search and
seizure would only be a rudimentary step in reducing the abuses committed under
the AFSPA.
If the Indian Government truly believes that the only
way to handle the governance of the North Eastern states is through force, then
it must allow the ICRC to intervene. This can only have a calming influence.
Acceptance of ICRC services would demonstrate that the fighting parties want to
bring an end to the violence. The ICRC's involvement could help protect the
residents of the North East who are currently trapped in the middle between
insurgents and the military.
Appendix 1
The Armed Forces (Assam and
Manipur) Special Powers Act (Amendment)
Act – 1972, No - 7 of 1972 (5
April 1972)
An Act to enable
certain special powers to be conferred upon the members of the armed forces in
disturbed areas in states of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura
and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. Be it enacted by
Parliament in the Ninth Year of the Republic of India as follows:
q
This Act may
be called the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958.
q
It extends
to the whole of the States of Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura
and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.
·
“Armed
Forces” means the military and the Air Force of the Union so operating;
·
“Disturbed
Area” means an area which is for the time being declared by notification under
Section 3 to be disturbed area;
·
all other
words and expression used herein, but not defined in the Air Force Act, 1950,
or in the Army Act, 1950, or in the Army Act, 1950, shall have the meanings
respectively assigned to them in those Acts.
q
If in
relation to any State or Union Territory to which this Act extends, the
Governor of the State, or the Administrator of the Union Territory, or the
Central Government in either case; is of the opinion that the whole or any is
in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that the use of Armed Forces in aid
of civil power is necessary, the Governor of that Sate or the Administrator of
that Union Territory or the Central Government as the case may be, may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare the whole or such part of such
State or Union Territory to be a disturbed area.
q
Any
commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other
person of equivalent rank in the Armed Forces may, in a disturbed area:
·
if he is of
the opinion that it is necessary to do so for maintanence of public order,
after giving such due warning as he may consider necessary, 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 the disturbed
area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons
or of things capable of being used as weapons or fire-arms, ammunition or
explosive substances;
·
if he is of
opinion that it is necessary to do so, destroy any arms dump, prepared or
fortified position or shelter from which armed attacks are made or are likely
to be made, or any structure used as a training camp for armed volunteers or
utilized as a hide-out by armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offense;
·
arrest,
without warrant, any person who has committed a cognisable offense or against
whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit
a cognisable offense and may use such force as may be necessary to effect the
arrest;
·
enter and
search without warrant any premises to make any such arrest as aforesaid or to
recover any person believed to be wrongfully restrained or confined or any
property or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be
unlawfully kept in such premises: and may for that purpose use force as may be
necessary.
q
Any person
arrested and taken into custody under this Act shall be made over to the
officer in charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay,
together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest.
q
No
prosecution, suit or legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the
previous sanction of the Central Government against any person in respect of
anything done or purported to be done in exercise of powers conferred by this
Act.
Source:
End Army Rule: A Report on the Working of thee Armed Forces (Special Powers)
Act in the North-East [Committee for the Repeal of the Armed Forces (Special
Powers) Act, Delhi 2004]
Appendix
II
Excesses of Indian Army in
Naga Areas
18 – 03 – 1956: The Indian Army forced 2 (two) Chiechama
villagers to carry the dead body of the first National Home Guard killed by
them (Indian Army), their hands tied to the pole to which the body was strung.
One of the carriers was already handicapped having only one arm. On reaching
Chiechama village the two villagers were tied to a tree and bayoneted to deaths
before the villagers. Then the Indian Army forced more villagers to carry the
dead body of the National Home Guard parading it around villages before
reaching Kohima town where it was kept displayed at the Kohima Rest House and
then at the main bazaar.
Such horrible deeds were repeated on several
occasions.
1956: Rev. Pelesato Chase was burnt alive on
Bible Hill, Phek.
18 – 06 – 1957:The Indian Army
declared Tsungiki village an “Underground Sub-Headquarter” and burnt down the
village along with all their granaries. Not satisfied with that, the Army even
went to the extent of torching their field barns too. The villagers were
grouped; many able-bodied males tortured and left handicapped for life and
women and girls sexually assaulted. When the villagers re-built their
thatch-houses, the Army came and burnt it down again. This went on and on and
subsequently, the village was burnt down seven times within a span of one year.
1962: Indian Army rounded up all the 12 (twelve)
adult male members of Matikhru village and after torturing them for hours, took
them into the village chief's house chopped off their heads one by one. One of
them who survived with serious injuries managed to reach the outskirts of the
village, but the army followed him and burned him to death. The womenfolk were
chased out of the village and their village burnt down. The Captain commanding
the Indian Army responsible for these heinous crimes was promoted.
1963:
6 (six) Naga students from Pfsutero Government High School were
kidnapped by the Indian Army and later butchered into pieces and scattered
those pieces in the jungle.
09 – 12 – 1970: Over 40 (forty) women subjected to sexual
assault ranging from molestation to rape at Cheswezumi village.
24 – 03 – 1971: Several women at Mao Song Song village
were molested in public.
11 – 07 – 1971: 4 (four) girls (all below 18 years of
age) were raped inside Yankeli Baptist Church, by a contingent of the Maratha
Regiment. The girls were dragged inside the church from amongst the villagers
who had been rounded up. The villagers were not allowed to move out of the
village for 4 complete days.
03-05/ 03 – 1974: Personnel of 95th BSF under
Maj. Pundir Brahm Prakash and captain Negy, carried out mass tortures and
sexual assaults on Ngaprum and Grihang vilagers.
Ngaprum.
Rose, in her teens (around 19 years of age),
committed suicide the next day after he was raped in front of her Ngaprum
village elders on the 4th of March. In her suicide note, she said she did not
see any reason for living in a world where such nasty crimes could be committed
in the full knowledge of her people and nothing could be done against it.
Grihang.
At Ukhrul hospital, Ngashingla (23) was brought in in
near dying condition, tortured and raped continuously for 3 (three) days from
the 3rd of March to the 5th of March, by the same 95th BSF
personnel. On the third day, she was dragged to the school building where the
villagers had already been rounded up. She was dragged by her around the classroom,
kicked and beaten, forcibly stripped, sticks forced into her private parts
causing profuse bleeding. All the villagers suffered immense tortures for 3
(three) days. Fathers were taken to the outskirts of the village with their
wives and daughters, who were raped before their eyes by the personnel of the
95th BSF.
The villagers of Ngaprum and Grihang were then
threatened that if news of the BSF’s crimes comes to the knowledge of the
general public, the villagers would be wiped out.
1976: Security Forces summoned all village
chiefs in Ukhrul district and told them to bring in the “undergrounds” by July
or face dire consequences. Christian leaders were forced to set themselves up
as peace committees. Then they imposed two month long curfew over 50 villages
in May-June-July, and prevented the villagers from even ploughing their
fields.
18 – 03 – 1978: A delegation of Naga leaders with prior
consent of the Indian Government left Kohima to meet the Naga Federal leaders
in the liberated areas to discuss matters relating to the political settlement
(this was in connection with the Shillong Accord Clause 3). But as usual, the
Indian Army, who also shot dead some of the delegates and arrested the rest,
intercepted this delegation at the border. This particular incident, which took
place at Meluri, speaks a lot about the public pronouncements made by the
military authority, which can even override the Governor who represents the
Central Government.
10 – 04 – 1979: Chikoy (15) and Nuhutso (14), two school children
at Phek were beaten up by the 14th Assam Rifles as “anti-national
elements”. Another 11-year-old boy escaped. The Assam Rifles personnel cited
the inability of these children to understand Hindi as adequate proof of being
anti-national elements.
18 – 05 – 1979: Kuonou, a 60-year-old woman of Kohima
village was on her way to the field when suddenly, a personnel of the 99th
BSF, pounced upon her and dragged her into the nearby bushes and raped her.
1980: Captain N. L. Sharma, Post Commander of
Kuingai, Ukhrul, molested village girls at the military doctor’s room. The
girls had gone there at the invitation of the wife of the doctor. When the
girls ran home, the Captain followed them with a number of personnel. At the
village, the Captain broke into the houses in the name of carrying out
house-searches, where as, he was actually looking for one of the girls. At last
he found the girl, ordered everyone to go away while pulling the girl inside an
empty house. The owner of the house who had been pushed out, held on to the
girl and at the risk of her own life helped the girl to flee. While attempting
this, several elders of the village were beaten up for coming out in the night.
The Chairman of the Autonomous District Council,
Kongsui Luithui took up the matter with the higher authorities.
Immediately, Captain N. L. Sharma was brought to
Ukhrul town as Commander of Operations.
With additional power, Captain N. L. Sharma went around entering many a
girl’s room.
April 1981: The same Captain N. L. Sharma now picked up Kongsui Luithui and
tortured him for hours. Kongsui had to be airlifted to Imphal in critical
condition.
1982: Army staged mass torture
and detention in the villages of Ukhrul making hundreds of them invalid for
life. Hundreds of women were subjected to rape and other forms of indignities.
On numerous occasions, the Security Forces stopped their vehicles in the middle
of the road when they saw girls and abused them.
The
finding of the All Women Team from Delhi that visited the villages confirmed
these atrocities. The Supreme Court of India awarded a relief of Rs. 200, 000/-
to 2 (two) widows whose husbands “disappeared” in the hands of the 21st
Sikh Regiment.
25 – 02 – 1982: When the Army came to Nungbi Khullen
village and began brutally assaulting the villagers; some women sought shelter
in K. Yarsing’s house. But the army forcibly entered the house, drove out the
women and began sexually assaulting the women. They forced them to undress and
plucked their pubic hair as part of their enjoyment. The names of the women are
K. Pangamla, K. Chareiphi, Ruth and Zingnila.
25 – 02 – 1982: Ngalangam Ramthao and Arthing,
(schoolgirls) of Kalhang village were abducted by the army.
Earlier, 3 (three) girls, Thotwonla , Thingthing and
Kathingla from the same village had been publicly molested and taken away by
the army and released after nearly two weeks.
From Paorei village 11 (eleven) women were taken away to an unknown
place following mass torture of villagers and released after days of illegal
detention. Their names are: L. Maireila, Y. Lungmila, P. Woringla, Y. Tharawon,
K. Peace, Sanyaola, Y. Sothingwon, Y. Hormila, L. Khoreila, Y. Luishomla and V.
Vangamla.
03 – 03 – 1982: Pastor P. Mashangva of Huishi village and
Pastor Mahangthei of Chingai were abducted and tortured in the army camp for a
week without food. They were subjected to electric shocks in their soft and
private parts, hanged upside down, made to dig their own graves and when
unconscious made to lie on chipped stones. When they cried out to God to end
their sufferings and take their lives, they were mockingly told to bring Jesus
Christ to rescue them.
05-06/ 03 – 1982: From 6:00 p.m. on the 5th of
March to 10:30 a.m. of the 6th of March, all the villagers of Huining
village were detained inside the village church leading to near suffocation,
especially of little children and babies. Later, C. Paul, the Assistant Pastor
was taken away.
K. Somi, Pastor of Phungchan village, Matuiching,
Pastor of Kalhang village and Vaomi, the church chowkidar were also meted out
severe torture and electric shocks.
25 – 03 – 1982: Vareichung, Pastor of Kurei village
Baptist Church, and three deacons, Z. Ronrei, R. V. Mahuiri and Ngashanglung,
were taken into the church building and tortured. They were released after
forcing them to sign statements saying nothing had been done to them.
April 1983: 3 (three) boys preparing for the Class X
Board Examination at Tadubi, were shot dead in their room without any reason.
December 1984: Esau was pulled out from his home in
Ukhrul and tortured to death (his neck was broken) at Talloi Camp.
1985: E. P. Winson of Tusom, Ukhrul,
“disappeared” after being picked up from his village by the 9th
Grenadiers. His remains were found in the jungle adjacent to the Phungyar
military camp.
24 – 01 – 1986: Two Army officers killed Luingamla (19)
of Ngaimu, Ukhrul, inside her home when she resisted rape.
24 – 05 – 1986: A contingent of 4th Assam
Rifles along with Peoples’ Militia of Nagaland pulled out 7 (seven) public
leaders from their homes in Tamenglong, and tortured them severely. Two of
them, S. T. P. Injellung, Headmaster, Tausem High School, and R. K.
Shonghuwang, former Chairman of Small Town Committee, died on the spot. Others
survived with serious injuries.
08 – 01 – 1987: 22nd Rajput Regiment ambushed
and killed boys from Singha Makok village, Mon district. They were a part of
the 13 (thirteen) boys taken by the insurgents into the jungle that night and
were returning home when they were fired upon. One of them was also injured.
October 1987: 3rd Assam Rifles forcibly
evicted villagers from 22 houses located on the hillside of the Maram Bazar,
Senapati. The said 3rd Assam Rifles converted the local church
building into a canteen, 2 of the houses as schools and the rest as their
quarters. The area was fenced off. Then they picked up village elders and youth
leaders and tortured them in order to silence them from telling the outside
world this forcible occupation.
October 1987: Rev. Father Chacko, was knocked down and
trampled upon inside the Ukhrul Parish compound by a contingent of the 4th
Assam Rifles under the command of a Major because he told them that they cannot
burst into the room of the nuns.
October 1987: 2 (two) boys from Talloi brought to
Ukhrul hospital with deep burn injuries after they were roasted in fire at the
Talloi Mahar Regiment Camp.
16 – 06 – 1988: Assam Rifles personnel under the command
of a Major attacked the student volunteers helping civilian authorities in
checking Inner Line Permit (ILP) in Kohima. The Assam Rifles personnel pulled
out one student from the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) office and beat him up
severely.
07-10/ 07 – 1988: Z. V. Canaan, S. C. Esau and R. S. Isaac,
were among the hundreds of persons rounded up from Ukhrul by the Security
Forces and severely tortured. On the 10th, Canaan and Esau were
taken to the nearby jungle and shot. Their bodies bore multiple injuries. R. S.
Isaac has since “disappeared”.
1989: Assam Rifles Personnel from Shangshak
Post, Ukhrul, under two Majors – one of them was Major Shukla – rounded up and
tortured Maku villagers and molested several women inside the houses where they
had been isolated.
13 – 04 – 1993: after an “encounter” in which the army
had killed one NSCN activist, the army entered Leishokching village and ordered
all persons to assemble in the common ground where the villagers were accused
of harboring and assisting the NSCN activists. 3 (three) young men were picked
up as a part of the “jungle operation,” detained for three days and tortured
with electric shocks.
15 – 08 – 1994: CRPF personnel opened fire on hearing the
sound of an approaching scooter. 5 (five) persons got injured. Then the army
came to Paraodon village, ordered the people to lie down on the ground. Three
girls were among them. The persons
injured were K. L. Chumringe, N. L. Piningam, S. N. Elpis, L. S. Hopeson, P. S.
Shungnal and S. R. Ngatun who was tortured for 12 hours.
07 – 09 – 1995: Inashe Ayemi (36), Project Director of the
District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) Zunheboto, was kicked and hit with gun
butts by army men in front of his mother and sister, who were helpless. Inashe
was then dragged away into an army camp. When his body was handed to the
police, he had bruises all over and a deep gash on the head, which had been
stitched up. There was stamp-pad ink on his fingers, which is itself
suspicious. Why should an educated man person give his thumb impression, if he
was conscious?
19 – 02 – 1996: Gaibi, a 20-year-old youth had carried
his licensed gun while going hunting with a friend. Some army men began random
firing in the market of Jalukie town on the19th. Gaibi’s fore arm
was hit with two shots and got fractured. He was picked up and detained for one
day and night without food and water. No medical attention was given to his
wounded arm. Ngoulung, Saina, Hoksen and Raku were also picked up at the same
time and badly tortured.
04 – 04 – 1996: Humangot, an 18-year-old farmer from the
Zeliangrong tribe was picked up by the army at 2:30 p.m. from Jalukie town and
was taken to the 16th Assam Rifles camp at Samzuiram, one and a half
km from Jalukie, under Major Rana. There he was blindfolded, his body pricked
all over with pins and a lathi squeezed on his lower body – from hips to feet.
For 5 days he was beaten severely, abused and forced to admit that he was an
underground worker. Not only were his wounds not treated but red-chillies were
rubbed into his open sores. He was then handed over to the police on April 19.