The Indian Army needs more leeway in internal conflicts

The primary role of the armed forces is to defend the State from external threats by using lethal force offensively. Members of the armed forces are trained professionals with the skills, equipment and management capacity to fulfil their mission and are willing to sacrifice their lives in the line of duty. In the past, the perceived danger of such a force being used against the population or the State had made political pundits advocate against the involvement of the armed forces in internal security matters. The civil society too was not in favour of such involvement.

However, in the last two decades, terrorist attacks all over the world has changed the security situation and blurred the lines between internal security and external threat. The threat posed to internal security by terrorists has changed the role played by the military and their professionalism is now being utilised to deal with internal security matters. The governments of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the UK, the USA among others have employed the armed forces for internal security duties. This has given rise to a debate on whether prolonged internal deployment and the performance of policing duties will affect the wartime preparedness of the armed forces. 

The core issue is whether a State should deploy its armed forces against terrorists in internal conflicts, and if so, whether and to what extent they should be given the power to shoot to kill. The most important right that any government owes its citizens is the right to personal safety, i.e., the right to live, work and move about peaceably, secure in one’s person and property. 

Terrorists have threatened this right and caused serious damage to the welfare of the people as well as to the security of nations. International law not only permits but also requires States to protect their citizens, without discrimination, by responding effectively to security threats. Thus, States can use their armed forces to deal with threats to their integrity and to the lives of their citizens.

In most of the affected States, national laws have been amended to enhance the scope of deployment of the armed forces to deal with incidents that fall short of insurrections, including any alleged act or danger of terrorism, and threats to critical infrastructure. 

The members of the armed forces are protected by the defence of ‘superior order’, which protects them from criminal liability unless the order they obeyed was ‘manifestly unlawful’. In most of the States, the principal provisions of the rules of engagement for the armed forces engaged in internal security are: (i) the use of minimum force to carry out the duty; (ii) if possible, to handle situations by means other than opening fire; (iii) if forced to fire, not to fire more rounds than are absolutely necessary; (iv) whenever possible, giving a clear and loud warning before firing; and (v) when operating collectively, opening fire only when ordered to do so. A soldier can meet force with force. If his life is endangered he does not have to wait until the terrorist is almost successful. 

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) applicable in certain parts of the northeastern states and the state of Jammu and Kashmir bestows additional powers on the officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) of the armed forces to deal with terrorists and militants. A few international and domestic non-governmental organisations have made scathing comments on the provisions of the AFSPA and held that they are violative of international human rights norms. However, the powers granted to the members of the armed forces under the AFSPA are similar to those granted in other countries.

States such as Canada and the US have, in fact, gone a step further in this regard. In 2006, Canada established a separate military command with the specific task of preparing and conducting internal operations. The officers and NCOs of the Canadian defence forces, while employed in aid of civil powers, have additional powers, which include the power of arrest, search and seizure and the use of lethal force. In the US, a separate military command, called the Northern Command (NORTCOM) was established in 2002 for the protection of the national territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and critical infrastructure against external threats and aggression.

The current scenario indicates that the deployment of the armed forces in internal security tasks will not only continue but also increase in the future. The new role of the armed forces places additional demands on them for which they must be adequately prepared. If soldiers are to be deployed in internal conflicts, they need to be given additional powers, which must include the authority to arrest, use lethal force, shoot down domestic enemies, interrogate, raid premises and seize documents. 

The author is a retired Wing Commander. Views expressed are personal.