Model answer favoring amnesty for security personnel
India's government must support its front line soldiers in their war against Pakistani supported Muslim secessionists and Sikh separatists. Loyal troops deserve praise, not punishment for their successful defense of national unity. The Sikh rebellion has been largely contained by security forces who did what was needed. When separatists commit intolerable atrocities, the government must fight fire with fire. Prosecution of individuals for occasional excess would imperil the Punjab's return to order.
Following the American civil war, Abraham Lincoln wisely recognized the importance of amnesty to heal the nation's wounds. Despite post-war recognition of unjust discrimination against Japanese detainees, the United States never punished its victorious generals. India already has an effective "truth commission," -- The National Human Rights Commission. There are ample remedies available in domestic courts. Central authorities have prosecuted wayward Punjabi officers for illegal killings and the Supreme Court that critically rebuked the offenders. Further efforts at prosecution will simply prolong the anguish over a history that can not be rewritten.
The NHRC's report on the October 1993 killing of 41 civilians in Bijbehara, Kashmir was described as "hard hitting" by an international human rights group. The U.S. State Department in its annual human rights country report praised the Commission reforms. In addition to closely monitoring court martial proceedings initiated against 14 BSF members, the NHRC recommended that the BSF conduct a full review of force deployment in civilian areas and pay compensation to the families of the victims. The Commission directed district magistrates nationwide to report all cases of custodial death to it within 24 hours or be presumed to have attempted a cover-up.14
Further prosecution of security officers would also violate the fundamental ex post facto principle against retroactive punishment for individuals whose conduct was legal under prior law. The Special Powers Acts bars any prosecution, suit, or other legal proceeding against any person in respect to anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by the Acts. The rules can't be changed and made retroactive at this late date.
If India ratifies the optional protocol to the political covenant, the UN Human Rights Committee could receive complaints from individual citizens against the government. What advantage would India derive from allowing UN committees in Geneva Switzerland to offer greater remedies than are available in national courts? The expert members from eighteen different countries could effectively overrule a decision of India's Supreme Court, find a victim entitled to damages, and direct changes in Indian law. Less than fifty years ago India achieved independence from such judicial review by the Privy Council in the British House of Lords. India's hard won sovereignty should not be surrendered to a supranational authority unfamiliar with Hindu culture, traditions and political institutions. Nor should India accept the dictates of Amnesty International or other nongovernmental critics who lack first hand knowledge of the facts and are unsympathetic to the preservation of national unity.
Main Menu / Back to Model Answer Page