Home’s shifting stand on AFSPA
- âBalaatkariyon ke liye Netaji ka mann ekdum mulayam haiâ
- Ramdev âgoes liveâ on poll funding, Congress hits BJP on black money
- Narendra Modi sent emissaries to open talks on Kashmir: Geelani
- After denying a 'Modi wave', Joshi endorses Modi as India's next PM
- Probe Ajit Pawar tape âthreateningâ to cut water supply: EC tells Pune collector
Issues concerning national security etc made by one government are expected to be followed through by any successive government, unless extreme changes in the ground situation merit otherwise.
However, the UPA government's Ministry of Home Affairs seems to be showing signs of a mid-way shift, or so it seems, on the crucial issue of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, with the change at the helm from P Chidambaram to Sushil Kumar Shinde.
Recently, it summarily rejected a recommendation of the Justice Verma panel — set up to look into changes in law to tackle crimes against women — that the AFSPA be amended to remove a provision that made it mandatory for a competent authority to give sanction before a criminal case could be lodged against a member of the armed forces in conflict areas like J&K. This gives the impression that the Home Ministry's view on the future of AFSPA might have changed.
Chidambaram and I&B Minister Manish Tewari later tried to play down the rejection, maintaining that issues like AFSPA were not incorporated in the ordinance brought in by the government following the Verma panel's report "because of divergence of opinion". As home minister, Chidambaram had been sympathetic to the demand by J&K and human rights activists that AFSPA should be partially revoked or amended, if not completely lifted from militancy- and insurgency-hit states. Under him, the Home Ministry had also recommended three amendments to the law, which are still in a discussion stage due to serious differences between it and the Defence Ministry.
In its recommendations, the Verma panel had suggested bringing sexual violence against women by uniformed men under the purview of ordinary criminal laws and appointment of special commissioners for safety of women in conflict areas. The committee had also suggested introducing a "breach of command responsibility", aimed at making a senior officer liable to a jail term of at least seven years if his/her subordinate commits rape while he does nothing to prevent it.