AFSPA debate

There is quite a bit that is wrong with the secular debate on AFSPA. NDTV had one recently (see here). Almost all points of views were represented though adequacy of some may be debated. The trigger for this debate is the alleged human rights violation of the armed forces. The human rights brigade has had phenomenal success is hijacking every important issue facing us today, but lets not go there.

It is interesting to watch secularists debate. This particular debate began with the host establishing the human rights violation angle. In their opening comments, army men in the show quickly put things back in perspective. This necessitated a change of course putting the focus back on human rights angle. Sajjad Lone helped do this with his stories with some able help from representatives of "civil citizenry". Enter Kanchan Gupta who put things back in perspective citing statistics that debunk the main charged hurled at our army. Turns out 97% of these alleged violations were baseless. Says who? How about the government and NHRC, among others. So now what is a secularist to do? Well, turn back to the human angle and that's precisely what happened.

Now it is alright to debate the army's accountability. It would carry weight if it was based on large scale violations and heavy handedness on the army's part. But, demanding the removal of AFSPA based on aberrations is where the secularists lose the plot. Myopic pursuits hardly help anyone's cause. The army has never been above law and will never be, unlike or neighbor.

The debate did touch upon something important but did not go further as it should have. The army is called in as a last resort, when the government, police, CRPF have all failed to control a situation. Rules and laws that apply in a normal situation have failed. The situation facing us in J&K is hardly normal. It is warlike situation. Now if you bring in the army under such circumstances and subject it to laws the local police is expected to operate under is utterly fruitless. Makes one wonder what is the "civil citizenry" batting for. A jihadi is not burdened by laws, he does not need an OK from a magistrate to fire at our army. Very easy to guess who is in a favorable situation.

The army is a lethal fighting machine guarding us from external threats. It should not be used to tackle internal situations. With political incompetence necessitating its use in J&K it should be empowered to carry out its job effectively. The AFSPA is that cover. To subject it to criminal laws is to neuter it completely. It will have an adverse effect on its operations.

"a mind with a secular bent"

The recent Swiss referendum to ban constructions of new minarets has riled every "mind with a secular bent". One such mind, Vishnu Som of the NDTV, declared -

"It represents a fundamental threat to millions of Muslims in our country" [Link]

It would seem strange that someone would declare a ban which is the result of a democratic referendum in a sovereign country and which is applicable only within the country's borders to be a fundamental threat to Muslims of another country. And this question was rightly asked by Nitin and others (follow the debate here). The response from Vishnu was unsatisfactory to begin with and entirely typical of "a mind with secular bent". His answer -

"This is as easy to comprehend as it gets." (Complete answer here)

What he seems to imply here is that the issue is so simple only a fool could not comprehend the threat to Muslims. The long, meandering response is anything but an answer. Instead it is a "secular mind" wondering why "right wingers" fail to get it. And Vishnu is guilty of doing the same things he accuses others are doing. In his response he says -

"I cannot tolerate such a generalisation and cannot tolerate people who believe that to be the truth. And it is generalisations like this which represent a fundamental threat to Muslims in India and around the world." [Link]

He disapproves of generalisations yet he paints all those who criticized his views as having a "right-wing edge". So any view that is not congruent to that of a "secular mind" is automatically "right-wing". And the connotations associated with "right-wing" are well known in India. Ergo, all contrary views are invalid. Only Vishu's, possessing a "secular mind", are correct. Indeed in this very first comment he sets a prerequisite to win any debate, one needs "a mind with a secular bend" to understand what he said. After this a "right-winger" can never win.

Another thing that's typical of a "secular mind" is the desire to jump to speak on behalf of the Muslims. If the Indian Muslims feel threatened by something that happened to Muslims elsewhere, let them say so, why should Vishnu feel compelled to do so? The Indian Muslims are capable and have the necessary freedom to do so. Indian Muslims are Indian, Swiss Muslims are Swiss and sovereignty of nations must be respected.

Much of what I feel has been articulated very well here, here and here. This is a very good example of the techniques the left uses when debating, declare your's is the right way, label opponents as "right-wingers", continue arguing "right-wing" is wrong hence anything it says is invalid and declare victory -

"Enough of the great minaret debate. Horrified by the right wing wall I ran into. New subject today ... Will tweet later today." [Link]