Centre in quandary over Omar’s hardening stance
Friday, 28 October 2011 00:37
PNS | New Delhi/Srinagar
Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s “unilateral” decision to remove the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) from four districts of the State has put the Centre in a quandary and widened the chasm between Congress and its coalition partner National Conference.
The Defence Ministry and the Army have vehemently opposed any such move making it difficult for the
Home Ministry — which is backing Omar — to take a call. It is against this backdrop that
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh chaired a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting here on Thursday to discuss the issue with Defence Minister AK Antony and Home Minister P Chidambaram.
Sources said the
Centre was not likely to take a decision in haste considering
the wider ramifications like escalation in violence and militants taking advantage by taking refuge in the zones where AFSPA was not applicable.
As for the Congress, its J&K president and head of the coordination committee of the coalition,
Saifuddin Soz came out openly against Omar saying he was “not consulted”. Backing Soz, the party leadership reminded Omar that running a coalition needed mutual consultations and gently cautioned him that there was also an understanding between the two over an annual performance review of his Government.
Omar, however, not only
asserted that his Cabinet would discuss the matter on Friday but also that he would forcefully press for the revocation of the controversial legislation.
{Competetive authoritarian model. He needs INC support to be in power but asserts his right to make unlateral decisiosn. Shows his anti-democratice nature. He is doing that because he has PC's backing which is most likely Rahul baba's stance: Be in power and run with the discontended.}
Sources said the Army had sought to dispel the misgivings about AFSPA and alleged human rights violations by citing the Supreme Court ruling that powers given to the armed forces like search and arrest without warrant and use of force to the extent of causing death under the Act were not in violation of Article 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution.
The apex court in its ruling in the case, Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights Versus Union of India, unambiguously said the AFSPA could not be regarded as a colourable legislation or a fraud on the Constitution.
Moreover,
Army commanders
in their discussions with the Cabinet Secretary-headed Central Government team, which visited the State last week,
maintained that the situation report card of one year or so cannot be the basis for removing AFSPA from certain areas. They also countered the State Government’s plea for AFSPA’s removal on the ground that the four proposed zones were relatively peaceful by stating that it came about due to AFSPA and relentless pro-active operations against the militants over the last one decade.
The
Defence Ministry concurred with the Army’s assessment and it was conveyed to the political leadership at the Centre as well in Jammu & Kashmir, sources said.
Soz said, “The decision is wrong if the country’s Defence Minister is not consulted.” He claimed that the coordination committee of the coalition headed by him also did not know about the decision.
AICC incharge of J&K Mohan Prakash said AFSPA’s withdrawal was a major decision and it should have been taken only after mutual consultations. “Whatever PCC president has said there must be some reasons behind it. It is not a happy situation and there is need for better coordination between the two parties,” Prakash said.
However, the Congress has refused to take any stand on the controversial legislation saying it will go by whatever the Centre decides.
While Omar maintained that Deputy Chief Minister Tara Chand, who is a senior Congress leader, was on board over the AFSPA decision,
Opposition People’s Democratic Party chief Mehbooba Mufti blamed the coalition bickering for the worsening security situation in J&K. She said revocation of AFSPA was inevitable for restoration of civil liberties in the embattled state.
Elaborating upon so-called wrong perception about the AFSPA, officials said various powers available to the police under the provision of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are more encompassing and it has wider powers relating to arrest, search, seizure, summoning of witnesses, preventive detention as compared to the AFSPA.
Moreover, Section 45 of the CrPC disallows arrest of public servants and Section 197 provides impunity against prosecution. A similar provision in the form of Section 7 is there in the AFSPA which offers protection to personnel acting in good faith in their official capacity. Prosecution is permitted only after sanction of the central government under this section.
.