The decision of the Manipur state government to recruit, train and deploy Special Police Officers (SPO) in the state is a few steps backward in regaining peace in that state. The decision was made in a state ministerial meeting held early last week. The Indian Home Ministry has also approved this decision. Within days, the state government has started recruiting persons to be appointed as SPOs in the state.
Despite the opposition of a few civil society organisations, recruitment was held in Manipur at Heirok village on 5 May and yet another one is planned to be held in Chajing tomorrow.
The state government has tried to justify this ‘dirty tactic’ of providing arms, training and cash incentives for individuals on the pretext of fighting “terrorism” in the state. Justifying his government’s decision, the Chief Minister of the state, Mr. Okram Ibibi Singh has said that “the decision follows civilian demands to carry licensed weapons for self-protection, especially after the killing of four persons by armed insurgent groups in the recent past“.
The Chief Minister has also said that the initial period of deployment of SPOs in the state will be one year, which could be extended. The newly armed civilians will be given the official title of “Special Police Officers” and will be provided training by the government. The first batch of an estimated 500 persons will be paid Rupees 3,000 (US$74) as a monthly allowance, a motorcycle each for conveyance and also an additional allowance for fuel for patrolling.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is certain that the Manipur government is repeating the same mistake the state of Chhattisgarh made a few years ago. The SPOs in Chhattisgarh work closely with a parallel group called the Salwa Judum, also supported by the state government. The similarity of the two groups, and crossover of individuals between them, makes it difficult to identify who is an SPO and who is a cadre of the Salwa Judum. Both groups are notorious for the atrocities they have committed in the past few years.
The situation in Chhattisgarh is under challenge at the Supreme Court of India. The Court even though is yet to make a final decision upon the issue, has already expressed its displeasure by opining that “the state cannot be allowed to arm factions among the citizenry, as this would imply state liability for the actions committed by such groups and could be abetting crime“. It appears that the state of Manipur lacks this legal common sense.
On the face of it, there is nothing wrong if a citizen possesses a weapon for a legitimate purpose. Possession of arms in India is regulated by the Indian Arms Act, 1959. But the situation is completely different when a faction of the citizenry is armed, trained and paid to help maintain law and order, yet the state is not accountable for its actions. This practice is comparable to engaging mercenaries. Though the usage of the term might not qualify under the definition provided in Article 47 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, in practice it is pretty much the same.
The alleged purpose of engaging SPOs in Manipur is to help the state maintain law and order. There is nothing wrong with expecting civilians to contribute to maintaining law and order, but “outsourcing” this state duty to ordinary citizens might not be a good option. Problems arise when people are trained to use arms and provided with weapons and cash incentives, particularly in a state like Manipur where there is a low intensity armed conflict going on for decades.
The Director General of Police in Manipur, Mr. Y. Joykumar, who personally monitored the first phase of recruitment held in Heirok said that the recruitment of SPOs is according to Section 17 of the Indian Police Act, 1861. This ancient law, that predates independence of India by 86 years, has attracted much criticism from all corners.
Even going by this law, it does not appear that Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861 was intended to facilitate recruitments en masse of SPOs in an entire state. Section 17 of the Act only provide for recruitment of persons by the police after a local Magistrate has approved an application for the same.
The Government of India itself had indicated its displeasure in continuing the operation of this law that fails to meet international standards by constituting a committee to review this law and to draft a new law to replace the current one. This being a law that was drafted during the British colonial rule in the region is more reflective of the colonial nature of police rather than a people friendly police.
Section 18 of the Act reads “every police officer so appointed have the same powers, privileges and protection, and shall be liable to perform the same duties and shall be amenable to the same penalties, and be subordinate to the same authorities, as the ordinary officers of the police“.
Section 19 of the Act reads “if any person being appointed a special police officer as aforesaid shall without sufficient excuse, neglect or refuse to serve as such, or to obey such lawful order or direction as may be given to him for the performance of his duties, he shall be liable, upon conviction before a Magistrate, to fine not exceeding fifty rupees[emphasis added] for every neglect, refusal or disobedience“.
These two sections of the Police Act, 1861 clearly underline the purpose of these provisions as envisaged by a colonial administrator — to legitimise orders requiring neighbours to fight neighbours so that the colonial master could easily maintain control of the colony. Fifty rupee, which was equivalent to the price of ten sovereigns of gold in 1861, was high enough a fine to scare a Sepoy and force him to obey. With this amount of money, one can hardly buy four cups of tea in India today.
However, the Chief of Police in Manipur has said that the SPOs recruited in the state will not be covered by any law concerning the state police, but by a different set of rules and regulations. The AHRC however is not aware of any other rule or regulation in India that could apply to the SPOs. The very approach of the Manipur state government to recruit persons as SPOs without any legal framework to regulate their deployment itself is an indicator of how their affairs will be managed.
In support of the recruitment the Police Chief Mr. Joykumar has made a series of farcical statements. The police chief has reportedly said that the high turnout of individuals, including men and women, for the recruitment is an indicator of the popular willingness and approval for the process. The AHRC is of the opinion that the high number in applications for appointment as SPOs in Manipur is a simple reflection of unemployment in the state, which stands at an all time high of 21.58%. This rate of unemployment is confirmed by a report published by the Department of Planning of the state government.
The incentives offered as allowances is yet another factor that motivates a large number of applicants to try for an appointment as an SPO in Manipur, especially when the number of persons living below the poverty line in the state has increased from five hundred and twenty nine thousand in 1987-88 to seven hundred and nineteen thousand in 1999-2000. Additionally, the people are also encouraged to believe that being recruited as an SPO is the best way to find a regular employment in the state police service. The statement made by the chief of police on 5 May that the SPOs will receive a priority treatment during recruitments to the state police stands proof to this.
In yet another statement the chief of police has also said that the misuse of authority or even use of arms by the SPOs beyond their designated areas will not be allowed and the SPOs who breach this rule will be immediately expelled. This statement runs directly in contradiction to the general public perception of Manipur state police.
Everyone in Manipur is aware that as of now even in cases of rape, torture or murder committed by the state police officers the authorities fail to take credible action against the accused officer. Even a proper enquiry will not be done by the state government. In these circumstances, where the state police have thus far failed to ensure the minimum discipline of its own cadre, an assurance that the SPOs will be disciplined cannot be trusted. Even otherwise, what discipline could a state police that is considered to be the synonym of criminals enforce upon persons who are recruited for a short period?
The fact that ordinary civilians have demanded weapons to protect themselves against anti-state groups must suggest to the government that something has gone terribly wrong with its own law enforcement agencies. Arming civilians, rather than correcting the operational mistakes of the law enforcement agencies, could be viewed as a recipe for more violence.
The people of Manipur have seen enough violence in the past six decades. The armed forces, operating with statutory impunity provided by virtue of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, are responsible for murder, arbitrary executions, rape, torture and disappearances in the state. The social psyche of fear generated by the misdeeds of state agencies is continuously exploited by anti-state factions. Providing the people with more arms in an attempt to curb violence in this situation makes no sense. Manipur is one of the most militarised states in the country.
There are several parallels between the engagement of SPOs in Chhattisgarh and Manipur. Most important is the fact that in both states SPOs are recruited from tribal communities — the same communities that have lost their land and other resources to the state and corrupt bureaucrats. From these communities, SPOs are armed to fight their own people on behalf of the state. In short, this method is the continuation of the age-old practice of divide and rule which has to be condemned.
