There is an ongoing debate on using the armed forces in the fight against the Maoist insurgency. So far, the Army and the Air Force have only been aiding the paramilitary forces in training, logistics and casualty evacuations. The core issue is whether the armed forces should be deployed directly against insurgents and, if so, to what extent. The most fundamental right that any government owes its citizens is personal safety, i.e., the right to live, work, and move about peaceably, secure in one's person and property. The activities of the insurgents have threatened this right, and caused serious damage to the welfare of the people as well as the security of the country. The military cannot sit idle while government property is being destroyed and innocent citizens are being killed.
International law not only permits but requires states to protect all its citizens, without discrimination, by responding effectively to security threats. There is an international trend towards establishing greater executive or governmental powers to deploy the armed forces for domestic and political purposes. Despite the historical taboo, derived from Magna Carta and the English Revolution, the British military has played an essential role in securing the state against internal political disaffections. The U.K.'s Civil Contingencies Act 2004 gives greater recourse to military operations to ‘maintain public order' and ‘suppress internal unrest.'
In Australia, a piece of legislation was introduced in 2000, and extended in 2006, giving federal governments and the chief of the Defence Force explicit peacetime powers to call out troops if “domestic violence is occurring or is likely to occur” that “would be likely to affect Commonwealth interests.”
In the U. S. and Canada, for the first time in history, separate military commands have been established, specifically tasked with preparing and conducting internal operations. The Canadian Defence Policy Statement in 2006 announced a shift in policy: “To better protect Canada and Canadians, the Canadian Armed Forces will be reorganised to more effectively and quickly respond to domestic crises, as well as support other government departments as required.” In Italy, 2008 and 2009 saw government troops on the streets of major cities in the name of combating crime and illegal immigration.
Jeffery K (1985) in Military Aid to Civil Power in the U.K. has categorically stated: “Domestic security is an inescapable responsibility for an army. The defence of the state must include the capability to assist in the maintenance of public order and the suppression of internal unrest, insurrection or even revolution.” When the subject of domestic peacekeeping comes up many of our military leaders respond with “we can't do it” or “we can't use air power against own citizens” or “it's not our job.” Such responses are not only incorrect but also erode the trust and support the Indian citizens have given to their armed forces. What citizens expect from their armed forces in the circumstances they are faced with is a quick, decisive, and professional response.
The military must be ready and willing to protect the nation against its domestic enemies. Once soldiers are deployed, they need to be given powers under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which must include the authority to use lethal force, shoot down domestic enemies, interrogate civilians, raid premises and seize documents. The armed forces need special protection from the point of view of operational efficiency to protect the rights of soldiers. The Indian armed forces have an exemplary record as regards human rights protection, especially when compared to other countries.
Civil society and the media must understand that the armed forces are called in to rein in the chaos created by political failure to fulfil promises made to the people, the killing of innocent people, and the failure of the civil administration. They must remember that the members of the armed forces are answerable for their lapses, and that the powers given to them under the AFSPA are not unlimited and cannot be resorted to at will. The mission is a lawful one and one that can be expected in the future. The military should be willing and has an obligation to be ready to execute the mission when the time comes. However, one word of caution: the armed forces should be used only as a last resort when civil law enforcement agencies — police and paramilitary forces — can no longer contain the situation.
(The writer is a retired Wing Commander. e-mail: ucjha1@rediffmail.com)
