The Telegraph
FIFTH COLUMN - Sudipta Bhattacharjee
Have gun, will shoot. But who will the target be? That is the dilemma confronting 500 young recruits in Manipur being trained in the use of arms to help defend their villages against militants. Should they listen to the government, or abide by the diktat of insurgent outfits to use these weapons to kill the security forces? Or should they lend a ear to human rights activists who want these “special police officers” to take on the administration?
On May 3, the Ibobi Singh cabinet resolved to recruit 300 volunteers from Heirok in Thoubal district and 200 more from Chajing in Imphal West on an experimental basis. If the plan succeeds, it will be replicated all over the state. Given the loopholes, it is not difficult to fathom why the chief minister vacillated for months before arriving at this decision. If rebel depredations mount simply to grab the weapons of this rag-tag vigilante squad, those critical of this move will feel vindicated.
If, on the other hand, the strategy does prove to be a deterrent for insurgents, will it backfire on the civilians? Manipur’s armed volunteers are young and impressionable, so one cannot guarantee that the guns will serve their avowed purpose of protecting the villagers from militant attacks. After all, the cadre of underground outfits come from such villages too, and the loyalty of residents, when caught between their own (albeit wayward) children and a free weapon, will certainly be put to the test.
Cannon fodder
Fifteen years ago, as a rookie reporter finding her feet in an insurgency zone, I’d asked a superintendent of police whether journalists ought not to be given arms for self-defence. Those being pre-cellphone days in India, we’d eye their walkie-talkies too, and yearn for the seized arms and ammunition displayed at press conferences. The official had pointed out that a gun, licensed or otherwise, would make us potential targets of militants. “They’ll kill you for the weapon and the walkie-talkie. You’re safer unarmed,” he’d remarked, adding: “Just as you are more likely to reach home in one piece if you trudge uphill at night instead of travelling in any police vehicle. We’re the first to be ambushed.”
Over the years, in conflict areas or out of them, those words have rung true. Even in countries like the United States of America, where all one needs to procure a weapon is a credit card and a clear record, the gun culture has backfired. Frequent campus killings have in no way affected the clout of the National Rifle Association or decreased the accessibility to dangerous weapons in that country.
It is not as if the Ibobi government is setting a precedence. The Salwa Judum experiment launched in Chhattisgarh to tackle Naxalites in 2005 drew similar mixed reactions. Civil society groups argue that for a government equipped with the controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, arming of civilians can only be self-defeating. Defence strategists have pointed out that selective arming sparks mass unrest. A gun gifted by a beleaguered government requires a degree of monitoring our administration is not equipped for.
Perhaps Ibobi Singh would do well to assign Manipur’s considerable security forces to protect the people instead of the elected handful. Grenades are lobbed into official residences of legislators every other day, despite a score of armed bodyguards for each minister. Ministers ought to go and live in their constituencies and let the armed forces protect the electorate, along with them. Terrorism can only be countered by an organized defence mechanism. Why not keep the guns for yourself and your 59 legislators, Mr Chief Minister? It is unfair to turn civilians into cannon fodder while you usurp State security for yourselves.
