[Assam] AT: Ajit Mahanta's Interrogation failure

Thu Mar 16 17:46:56 PST 2006

Ajit Mahanta would have cracked in 24 hours time or before anyway. Under proper interrogation, an espionage agent breaks down in about 12-15 days. Interrogation is the art of extracting maximum information from an individual by systematic questioning. An investigator needs to find out all facts and has special skills. He has to have a thorough understanding of basic psychology, interrogation techniques, specialized knowledge as well as writing and speaking ability. In Assam, Jammu and Kashmir-type interrogation by freshly inducted officers from Kashmir may not work. Situation in Assam is different from J&K where the hardcores call the shots. Use of physical force there to extract information becomes necessary.
 After the brutal killing of 32-yaer-old Thangjam Manorama by Assam Rifles personnel in Manipur on July 11, 2004 and allegations of her rape, torture and subsequent killing in custody, armed forces officers have not kept themselves abreast of development. The 1/3 Gorkha Rifles team reportedly resorted to third degree from the first instance which is the last resort. Use of force, promises and threats or jumping to conclusions are available errors in the interrogation process. Control, flexibility, logic, human psychology, thoroughness, atmosphere and questioning technique form the principles of interrogation.
Caught in Action
 Ajit Mahantas death in custody doesnt appear to be a case of upper-level planning. His death was most likely the result of planning at lower level by officers engaged in the rat race for medals and promotions. There was need for utmost restraint and guidelines from high-level officers in dealing with suspect cases considering that ULFA had constituted Peoples Consultative Group (PCG) to facilitate peace talks with the Centre after 25 years of insurgency. If Ajit Mahanta had known about a huge cache of arms and Gorkha Rifles personnel did not have special interrogators in hand, appropriate initiative under the circumstances would have been to approach formation for military intelligence (MI) investigators trained in the art of interrogation. They could have taken over for their period within the purview of their investigative mission. With patience and skill, Ajit Mahanta would have spilled the beans, if any, under any one of several types of interrogation such as informal,
 formal, screening, deferring interview or technical interrogation. Background information on Ajit Mahanta, circumstances of arrest and reason for suspicion would have reinforced detailed interrogation process which is basic to compiling a comprehensive report.
 It is possible the Gorkha Rifles unit did not have critical information, weak areas or key data on Mahanta before making the arrest. Ajit Mahanta was picked up and dumped next day at the casualty ward of Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh around 2 am on February 5. The team didnt inform either police or civil administration. As in Manorama case, the Army claimed Mahanta was an ULFA linkman and leading troops to a treasure trove of arms and possibly cash of a militant group when he had a fatal fall. The post-mortem report, however, indicated profuse internal bleeding but no significant external injury. Clause 5 of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958 says, any person arrested and taken into custody under the Act shall be made ever to the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest. The Gorkha Rifles team didnt comply with this clause. General diary of concerned
 police station should be able to enlighten.
Lost love
 While a few black sheep tarnished the image of the entire force in the Manorama case, the single incident of Mahantas arrest and death leading to tragedy of nine deaths and scores injured in police firing has shown the military in poor light. If Mahanta was picked up on February 4 and paid with his life next day, the sensitive and all important Centre-PCG talks were started the day next after his death. The sequence of events may not be related but it lends strength to ULFA charge that 25 of the outfits cadre and 20 civilians had been killed to pulverize the peace process. Events such as this reinforce allegations that Army doesnt want a solution to ULFA problem. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who represents Assam in Parliament, was himself present in the first round of Centre-PCG talks in October last. No Prime Minister was present in the first round of talks between the Centre and NSCN(I-M).
 A skilled interrogator wouldnt have taken much time to find out if Ajit Mahanta was a pathological liar, know-nothing type, fearful and tricky or sky and reticent. Apart from objectivity and integrity, qualities of an interrogator are motivation and a logical mind. Instead of resorting to brute force at first instance, he would have tried to ascertain if the suspect was an extrovert, introvert, normal or neurotic. Monitoring changes in Mahantas voice, speech and breathing would have been enough to justify he wasnt material for torture. A hardcore criminal can take torture for sometime and yet not break. If Mahanta, a daily wage earner, had any particular internal driving force or condition that initiated and sustained his activity as an ULFA linkman, the invetigators would have found out in no time and without using any force.
 While Mahantas arrest was a violation of clause 5 of AFSPA, 1958, arrests made under the same Act cant be outside the purview of Supreme Court directions given time to time. The apex court in its judgement of December 18, 1996 disposing some writ petitions had issued several directives to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions come into play as preventive measures. Time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by police or security personnel when the immediate friend or kin is settled outside the district or town through legal assistance organization of the district and police station concerned. This must be done telegraphically or otherwise in eight to ten hours after arrest. Ajit Mahantas wife Kadamani has stated that five Army personnel in uniform picked up her husband before she could do anything. When she tried calling her neighbour, she was shown the gun and asked to shut up. She later confessed that two Assamese
 youths, one of them Jelai Dohatiya, had identified their house to the team.
Dead easy
 The Supreme Court direction also stipulates that a memo of arrest must be prepared at time of arrest and such paper must be attested by at least one witness. Witness may be next friend of arrestee or a leading man of the area. The suspect must countersign the memo which shall contain time and case of arrest. Though two other persons Gamo Moran and Kanak Mahanta were witness to Mahantas arrest it isnt clear if either of then or Mahanta himself signed the arrest memo, if any. Nobody knew about Mahantas place of custody or lockup. No friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his well-being was informed about the arrest or particular place of detention. If that is not done, arresting witness of arrest memo must himself be such a friend or relative of the arrestee. Only information available was that Ajit Mahanta was dead and his body lying in Assam Medical College Hospital.
 Supreme Court directives also require a note to be made in diary at the detention centre relating to an arrest. Entry shall also mention name of immediate friend who has been intimated of the arrest. He has to be also informed about particulars of officials who hold custody. The accused on request can also be examined for major or minor injuries, if any, at time of arrest and this must be put on record. A copy of the inspection memo signed both by the arrestee and police or other official carrying out the arrest must be provided to the arrestee. Directions also provide for medical examination every 48 hours during custody and require all documents including memo of arrest to be submitted to magistrate for his record. Chief of Army Staff General JJ Singh is understand to have asked military authorities in Assam to ensure a speedy and impartial probe. Brigadier AS Minhas of 2 Mountain Division who is conducting the inquiry must therefore find it necessary to know whether and to what
 extent those Supreme Court directions were honoured. Meanwhile, a captain and a major have been closed, which, in military parlance, means relieving them of responsibilities but not suspension.
Sport in blood
 Section 6 of AFSPA allows persecution of black sheep only when the Centre permits. No judicious national or international law would offer such immunity to criminals. This is bad law, if not the worst in history. Key provisions of Assam Disturbed Areas Act, promulgated by the Assam Assembly in 1956 to check Naga hostiles and AFSPA of 1958, enacted by the Centre to deal with civilian population in the worlds largest democracy, perhaps have no parallel in the democratic world. A line has to be drawn between law enacted by civil society and authoritarian, racially discriminatory laws such as those enacted by Hitlers Third Reich. It is claimed that Section 4 of AFSPA is exactly the replica of Dachau Regulation, November 1, 1933 of Hitler Section 12: The following offenders, considered as mutineers, will be shot on the spot or later hanged, Keitels Order of May, 1941 empowers an officer to decide whether persons suspected of criminal action are to be shot. Licence to kill citizens
 merely on suspicion and bereft of judicial guarantee leaving the dead no appeal is basic to Nazi laws.
 The Assam Disturbed Areas Act and AFSPA came under judicial scrutiny in 1980. Then Governor of Assam had declared entire Assam as disturbed area to pave the way for operation of the two Acts in the backdrop of the anti-foreigner movement. Indrajit Barua of Assam had filed a petition in Gauhati High Court on April 8, 1980 and the court declared both the Acts ultra vires the Constitution. Operation of the Governors order and application of both the Acts were stayed. Union and State governments preferred an appeal in Supreme Court. It, however, didnt interfere with the High Court judgement at that stage. 
 Petitioners went on appeal to Gauhati High Court on direction of Supreme Court. High Court modified the order but stayed key provisions of power given to police and army to use force to point of death in the two Acts. Centre and State prevailed upon Supreme Court to transfer the case to Delhi High Court which declared the Acts necessary for maintaining security and therefore valid in law. Supreme Court after 18 years of case against the law in 1980 defended the licence to kill.
 Turning down the plea to declare the Act as a concealed measure intended to achieve the same result as promulgation of emergency under Articles 352 and 356 of the Constitution, Supreme Court presented some safeguards against excessive use of force. It struck a balance between security needs of the country and contemporary norms of civilized behaviour. Though reasonable checks have been put in place to guard against gross violations of personal liberty and human rights by men in uniform, it is open to question if most army, police and paramilitary commanders are aware about Supreme Court directives on use of force on civilians. The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (UN) had urged upon the Centre to remove incompatibility of the law with Indias binding obligation under the 1966 political covenant.
 The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) with no less a person than Chief Justice of India has persistently pointed the need for repeal of laws such as AFSPA. In terms of brutality content of national laws, AFSPA, 1958 is several times over deadlier than the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) or Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) which had never incorporated the licence to kill.
Tough target
 Justice Upendra Commission constituted to probe killing of Thangfam Manorama submitted its report several months ago. The Centre is, however, yet to take any action on it ever as abuse and misuse of powers conferred by the AFSPA continue. The AFSPA is compared with the AFSPA, 1942 promulgated by the colonial Governor General and Viceroy Linglithgow which was hated by Indians. The then home minister GB Pant had assured in Parliament in 1958 that such a law had been adopted for a short time for Naga hostiles only. Half-a-century is not a short time as Pant made lawmakers believe in 1958. After 50 years, AFSPA has hit at only the vitals of civil society and not highly mobile guerrillas who disappear like smoke in the air over the border before troops know what hit them. The AFSPA has motivated Manipur woman social activist E Sharmila to undertake fast-unto-death for over four years now demanding its withdrawal.
 The AFSPA has been addressed to the racially distinct people of the northeastern region and is thus discriminatory. It contains genocidal implications inherent in its contents. General population of Jammu and Kashmir has already been alienated by indiscriminate use of AFSPA. Armys task in the Northeast is not an easy one. It has to counter armed insurgents and also ensure that innocent civilians are not harassed. Tragedies in Nagaland, Manipur and Assam show how difficult the balancing act can be. It would be unfair to write off key role of army in protecting rule of law and securing lives of common people of the region. Army, however, cant afford to be seen as lenient to its errant men found guilty of violation of human rights. Fault is not the armys. Soldiers are just doing their job under most difficult of circumstances. Real blame lies with politicians who have brought the nation to the brink of anarchy in sensitive border regions such as the Northeast and J&K in pursuit of
 their interests.
Living life
 While peace-negotiations must take up the enormous challenge tragic events in Kakopathar have thrown up to keep the peace process alive, the Government of India must also take urgent steps to amend provisions of the AFSPA. It should proceed in the light of Supreme Court directions, relevant provisions in police manuals on arrest and custody and recommendations of Upendra panel to prevent misuse of powers under the Act. The Centre must identify all black sheep, however high his rank, and punish them by initiating steps to tighten supervisory control and disciplines of security forces deployed for anti-insurgency and anti-terrorist operations. Army, BSF or CISF should be allowed to deal with specific purpose for which they were raised and a new Central force exclusively for anti-insurgency and anti-terror operations must be formed without delay.
 Isnt it high time for Parliament to repeal the black law and State governments in the Northeast to withdraw the same?

Vijayanta Sharma Pathak

Umesh Sharma
5121 Lackawanna ST
College Park, MD 20740

 1-202-215-4328 [Cell Phone]

Ed.M. - International Education Policy
Harvard Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University,
Class of 2005

---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20060317/ad023fe3/attachment.htm>