|
In Manipur,
the phenomenon of 'disappearances' has been endemic for decades. Cases of
enforced disappearances in Manipur is closely linked to the
counter-insurgency operations conducted by the security forces. It occurs
in conjunction with other forms of human rights violations like arbitrary
detention, torture and extrajudicial execution etc.
Insurgency
in Manipur is inter alia linked to the political status of Manipur
since 1949.
Political
Context
Manipur
existed as an independent kingdom until the Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891.
Thereafter, it became a British colony under a system of indirect rule. In
1947, it was de-colonized under the Indian Independence Act, 1947. The
same year the Manipur Constitution Act was passed and a constitutional
monarchy was established. Elections were held under this Act in 1948 and a
Council of Ministers started running the state, when in 1949 the Maharaja
of Manipur signed the controversial merger agreement with the Dominion of
India, 'under duress'. The popular assembly was summarily dissolved and
Manipur was kept under direct rule from Delhi.
A large
section of the population resisted the merger for what they called an
"illegal and illegitimate annexation". From the Government of
India's point of view, the merger is complete and there is no way by which
the process can be reverted. Any group raising such issues can be banned
under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. In Manipur, there are
scores of such banned groups.
The
Government of India came down hard on the insurgency movement with the
imposition of an undeclared state of emergency in the state of Manipur and
armed its agents with special powers. The state was declared 'out of
bounds' to international human rights monitors.
The Armed
Forces (Special Powers) Act, a legislation enabling the armed forces of
the union to exercise unguided power with immunity is imposed for decades.
Besides the power to search and arrest suspects, the Act sanctions even
non-commissioned officers to shoot and kill any person on mere suspicion.
Most of the disappearance cases occur when the armed forces arrest
suspects while exercising these special powers.
(See the
inaugural issue of Manipur Update, December 1999 for a full discussion on
Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 )
The
Phenomena
From the
perspective of the victim involved, the phenomena of 'disappearance' in
Manipur can be broadly divided into two types, namely activists of the
underground groups and ordinary civilians.
Underground
members and their sympathizers are often subjected to severe torture after
arrest, to extract information on their activities. Those who finally
yield to such torture are often taken along with the security forces to
serve as what they called the 'cat's eye' - to identify their former
shelters, friends and associates.
The process
of reversing the loyalty of the underground activist is a traumatic
experience wherein terror tactics both physical as well as psychological
are resorted to. Many hardcore underground activists never came out of
these torture cells. They simply 'disappear'.
The exact
figure of underground activists, who disappeared after arrest, cannot be
ascertained at this juncture. Some families of the victims are not even
sure if the person is still active in the underground or has
'disappeared'.
The general
public also harbour a wrong notion that once a person is identified as
underground, he is not entitled to any human rights and the security
forces can do whatever they wish. As a result, such cases are not
generally pursued by the family members.
Sometimes,
even lawyers are reluctant to take up their cases for the fear of being
dubbed as underground sympathizers. There is little documentation on the
subject. It is hoped that a clearer picture will eventually emerge at a
later date.
Sometimes
it can be deliberate, sometimes it can be a case of mistaken identity,
sometimes it may be vested interests of the army informers and yet
sometimes it may be for reasons best known to the security forces alone.
But the fact remains that, many innocent civilians too fell victim to the
involuntary disappearances in the hands of the security forces.
Civilian
Victim
When an
innocent civilian disappears in the custody of security forces, the
general public do not take it lying down. Citizens's Committee often
called the Joint Action Committees (JACs) are formed and people come out
in the streets, hold mass demonstrations, hold relay hunger strikes,
submit memoranda to the authorities and the local media gives wide
coverage. The law courts and sometime even the civil administration are a
little more receptive. As a result, many such cases are well documented.
However, it
was not without some difficulties that the first writ of Habeas Corpus was
filed in Manipur. On 23 September 1980 three youths namely Mr. Kangujam
Loken (21 years), Mr. Thokchom Lokendro (21 years) and Mr. Kangujam
Iboyaima were arrested by the personnel of Jammu and Kashmir Rifles
stationed at Manipur then. Mr. Iboyaima was released a few days later on
26 September, but the other two never returned. With the help from social
activists and some public-spirited lawyers, the mothers of Loken and
Lokendro filed the first Habeas Corpus case in the Gauhati High
Court in 1981 [CR no. 128 & 129 of 1981]. Thereafter, many more Habeas
Corpus cases were filed in the High Court.
(Fact
sheets of ten such cases followed by HRA are enclosed in Document 2)
HRA
is however aware that, the number of cases registered in the court is far
short of the actual number of disappearances. Given the general fear
psychosis in challenging the army, the level of ignorance of the families
of the victims, adverse transport and communication conditions, general
apathy of the bar and the bench, only but a few cases finds its way to the
law courts.
|
