'There's no military solution to problems of insurgency'

Suhas Chakma heads the New Delhi-based Asian Centre for Human Rights. The organisation is dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Asian region.

Suhas Chakma/ Photo credit: Anna Nath/ OWSA

The ACHR seeks to provide timely and accurate information. It also conducts investigations and runs campaigns about country situations or individual cases.

Its objective is to increase the impact of human rights activists and civil society groups and work towards securing cultural, social and economic rights through rights based approaches to development.

Being a director of the ACHR, Chakma has long been a keen observer of human rights situations and the politics of the Asian region.

Here are the excerpts of the interview:

OneWorld South Asia: Could you please tell us about the Asian Centre for Human Rights? The kind of activities it is indulged in, the countries it covers, the issues it raises, etc.

Suhas Chakma: The Asian Centre for Human Rights is basically a regional human rights organisation which focuses mainly on South and Southeast Asia. In South Asia, primary focus is on India since it is based here. But we also cover issues in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Bhutan.

We do not cover Afghanistan because we do not have the capacity there. More so, we think that we have hardly any constructive role to play there. In Southeast Asia, we are covering Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines. However there are already strong civil society groups working in the region.

Our campaigns are around the issues of torture, judicial executions, custodial deaths, freedom of expression, right to assembly, etc. Of course, we also do campaigning for strengthening of democracy, better governance and right to participation.

We have quite a large mandate. We also follow issues raised in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It is difficult to make a distinction between civil and political rights and social and cultural rights. They are always interlinked. We believe that there are strong mechanisms at the levels of both judiciary and Constitution. In addition, we also have several redressal mechanisms – be it the National Human Rights Commission or the national commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Our strategy is to use these mechanisms to ensure that the rights of the people are not violated.

OWSA: ACHR’s new report discusses at length the security challenges posed by Naxal violence and the state’s response to it. The Indian government is now reportedly planning to launch an unprecedented military offensive in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Orissa, and West Bengal. The stated objective of the offensive is to liberate these areas from the influence of Maoist rebels. Your comments.

SC: The state is within its rights to take action when somebody challenges its authority. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the Government of India is taking action against the Maoists. But what will be wrong and what should not be tolerated by human rights advocates is that the non-combatants civilians are subjected to human rights violations in the process of trying to take control over the areas dominated by Naxals. That is not permissible under any circumstances.

That apart I don’t think the actions of the government will resolve or reduce Maoist influence in these areas. We must not forget that we are not dealing with Maoists of the 1960s, who were fighting in the backstreets of Kolkata, who came from the creamy layer of the society and who could easily be found out. On the contrary, we are dealing with the Naxalites of today, who are deeply entrenched in forest areas.

I may add here that I don’t think there is any military solution to these problems. It has to be resolved through dialogue. However, the problem with dialogue is that the Maoists have not yet come out with any charter of demands. You may be in disagreement with the All Party Hurriyat Conference but you must appreciate the fact that they at least have a set of demands. Similarly the insurgents of National Socialist Council of Nagaland also have a set of their own demands.

This cannot go on for too long. Sooner or later, they will be exposed and the very dalits and adivasis, who today are their supporters, will begin to alienate them.

So while we condemn the violence by the security forces, we also condemn the violence perpetrated by the Naxalites.

OWSA: How would you describe the human right situation in Northeast India? How active are the insurgent groups in the region? What is happening to the government’s peace moves with several insurgent groups?

SC: The human rights situation is very bad in the northeast and this is yet another place where the Government of India has miserably failed. Let me tell you that nobody will ever challenge the government if its security forces are engaged in a genuine combat with the insurgents. The problem arises when you use force against the non-combatant civilians.

We now have a new home secretary who is very committed and who knows the issues in the northeast. I would like to believe that there is a commitment to take the peace process further. The government also should realise that if the peace process is not taken forward, it gives the armed groups an opportunity to collect more taxes to generate more resources and to buy more arms.

Peace process should become a tool to achieve peace and not an instrument for  delaying conflict. And until now, the centre has been delaying the conflict. It is not going to help.

The home ministry has prepared a paper for the resolution of the Naga issue. It’s a welcome step.

OWSA: Armed Forces Special Powers Act continues to remain in force despite a government’s own committee recently made a recommendation for its repeal. We all know how valiantly Irome Sharmila has been fighting against it. Tell us how this particular act affects the life of ordinary people?

SC: People in the northeast see the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) as an instrument of repression by the centre. And if there is one issue that unites the Meities (Manipuris) and the Nagas despite contesting claims over lands and natural resources, it is the AFSPA.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act empowers a security personnel who is a non-commissioned officer to use firearms if there is a crowd of more than four people.

There is a need to make a distinction between who is a combatant and a non-combatant. If you cannot make that distinction, the security forces will always misuse and abuse the Act and ordinary citizens will be victimised. And that is what this Act is all about.

In a place like Delhi, the maximum punishment for unlawful assembly is six months’ imprisonment. That too after a trial in the court of law to prove the guilt. But here you are allowing even a non-commissioned officer to take away the life of a person, if that person in that officer’s perception, was guilty of an offence.

The other aspect of AFSPA is the impunity provisions that it has. This law protects members of the security forces from being prosecuted for any of their actions, including the killings. If the Act is withdrawn, they might have to face prosecution for their excesses. This is what they fear and hence they are opposed to its withdrawal.

It’s unfortunate that the government has still persisted with the Act despite protests by people, including by Irome Sharmila. The AFSPA has been consistently used against the civilians and the centre has chosen to turn a blind eye.

OWSA: We also see that the human rights activists all over the country are being targeted and maligned for taking the sides of “ insurgents” and “ terrorists” [as the state defines them]. What do you think is the gravest challenge before the human rights movement in India today?

SC: Like in any other field, civil liberties movement also has its own grey areas. The question of violence by non-state actors has always been debated in the human rights movement. In fact, the best debate took place within Amnesty International as to how to deal with the violence by the armed insurgent groups.

Therefore it is not true that human rights groups do not condemn violence by the armed groups, including the Naxalites. We have consistently condemned violence by Naxals in Bihar and other places. Some TV channels like Times Now say that NGOs do not condemn violence by Naxals. It’s absolutely rubbish. If I issue a statement and the press doesn’t carry it, how is it my fault?

The biggest challenge for the NGOs is the vilification campaign that is being run by the Indian government on some channels without cross checking the facts. There are organisations like People’s Union for Civil Liberties that have condemned Naxal violence.

Indian government must remember that human rights agencies will continue to condemn violence by Naxalites. But at the same time we will never equate the Naxalites with the security forces. The security forces are here to enforce the rule of law, to ensure respect for the Constitution of India and give fair trial to those captured in combat. So that distinction the NGOs will continue to make. For this, they should be appreciated and not condemned.

The crux is that if there is no difference between the terrorists and the security forces, then you are basically living in a blind world.