Lesson 11 Coercive Dimensions Important Notes

Lesson 11 Coercive Dimensions

Coercion is a complex phenomenon accompanied with power to control or to influence others. It occurs in both interpersonal or institutional or political contexts.It is also defined as “to compel to an act or choice”.It is a defining characteristic of a state. Coercive may take different forms like preventing someone from doing something, or byphysically construing an individual. Louis Krisberg offers a succinct definition that captures the essence of coercive power: “Coercive involves trying to make the other side yield by reason of fear or actual force”. It guarantees the reproduction of domination and order and suppresses challenges to state authority.

Indeed, the testing has become more andmore stringent. There is a rise in social conflict, the economy does notshow an adequate rate of growth, and democratic institutions, now beingcited as reasons for the inability to cope with the social and economic development, are losing their democratic character and are unable to stem thetide of violence in society. This chapter attempts to examine some of theseissues and particularly focuses attention on the processes and the institutions by which the Indian state has expanded its capacity to use coercivepower against the unruly.

The coercive ones, which were basically the public institutions such as the government, police, armed forces and the legal system he regarded as the state or political society and the non-coercive ones were the others such as the churches, the schools, trade unions, political parties, cultural associations, clubs, the family, NGOs etc. which he regarded as civil society. There are several areas where the state hasthe power to mandate and enforce compliance.

 

State and Non-State Actors

There are various organization that deals with different kinds of situations for both individual and a group. The colonial legacy and its continuity can be seen in various organizational structures though India had freed itself from the yolk of foreign rule since 1947. India being having a diverse culture, religion, language, caste etc it is not an easy task for the state to maintain its control because of its physiographic unevenness.

The main objective was to provide a general penal code of India. IPC section 124 which lays down the punishment for sedition is one such example of continuity of colonial legacy in India. The state uses various mechanism to curb both the legitimate and illegitimate behaviour of its citizens. Various Act had been passed even after independence to determine its supreme control over the people. Seeing the diverse culture and aspirations of the country, unending protest and making a number of demands tangled with the coercive instrument to suppress. Soon after India’s independent, regional aspirations, linguistic issues, partition between India and Pakistan, famine, poverty, illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and the porous boundary were the circumstances that employed the state and its forces to control the situation. There was certain case where extreme way of dealing with the situation by the state.

Arvind Verma hasbrought out the modus operandi of state forces with related to power of arrest, search, seizure and preventive detention. He finds certain sections of the IPC not reasonable ground to applied state forces. It gives the state police an excessive behaviour to deal with the citizens which sometime applied excessively. When a person does not actually commit a crime, he still faces the police perpetration and sometime punished without ant committing the actual crime. With just a mere suspicion an innocent person may incurred his whole life under the state atrocities.

There are various cases where the law itself needs to be revisit and redefine according to the change in time. In the presence of technological and communication advancement, the state laws need to be codified with the existing cultural development and technological advancement. The state sometimes involves in using various section under IPC to the extend where the political parties tries to undermine the opponent. During election time many political parties who are enjoying power use the state agencies to defame their opponent.

The nature of the Indian State has been shaped by a contestation between the logic of democracy and the logic of domination. On one hand, the logic of democracy helped open up the possibility of a popular, responsive and accountable government that would deliver on the promise of governance, development and a levelling of hierarchies in a deeply unequal society. This was not just a normative ideal evolved through the freedom movement and the various struggles for equality accompanying it.

In a society where an overwhelming majority of the electors are poor, democratic politics was expected to direct state power towards a redistribution of resources and enhance access to basic goods and services for the poor. In this sense, the logic of democracy has in it an ingrained transformative element. In the Indian context, the idea of transformation was built much more consciously in both the institutions and practices of democracy.

The early twenty-first century national security environment has been characterized by political coercion. Despite an abundance of political commentary on the various forms of non-state coercion leveraged against the state, there is a lack of literature which distinguishes between the mechanisms and the mediums of coercion. Frequently non-state movements seeking to coerce the state are labelled by their tactics, not their strategies.

The study applies a general theory of political coercion, which is defined as attempts to change the policies or action of a polity against its will, to the strategies employed by terrorist groups, insurgencies, and social movements. This distinguishes non-state actors’ strategic objectives from their actions and motives, which are variables that are often used to differentiate between types of non-state actors and the labels commonly used to describe them. It also allows for a comparative analysis of theoretical perspectives from the disciplines of terrorism, insurgency and counterinsurgency, and social movements. The study finds that there is a significant degree of overlap in the way that different disciplines conceptualize the mechanism of political coercion by non-state actors. Studies of terrorism and counterterrorism focus more on the notions of cost tolerance and collective punishment, while studies of insurgency focus on a contest of legitimacy between actors, and social movement theory tend to link political objectives, social capital, and a mechanism of influence to leverage against the state.

Since institutional democratization in 1987, it is conventionally known that governmental authority has exercised its power through law and police force, rather than inclusive or private violence. In other words, 1987 pro-democracy movement has been a critical juncture for a step towards democratic consolidation. However, state coercion may continually be exerted despite institutional specification by law in South Korean context. Explicit case would be amendment of ‘the Law on Assembly and Demonstration’ which determines citizens’ right to take collective action mostly against government actions.

 

Insurgency Problem in North-East India, State-Sponsored Terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and Naxal Movement

Northeast India is the most volatile and insurgency affected place in the country after Kashmir. It is the easternmost part of India. The region is composed of eight states namely[1]Meghalaya, Manipur, Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Sikkim. The fact that further jeopardizing mainland India’s links with the region is the thriving militancy in most of the northeast states. The demands of the different militant groups range from autonomy within the provisions of the Indian constitution to outright secession. Such militant movements started early with India’s independence in 1947.

Nevertheless, the region remains a potential tinderbox. Militants in India’s northeast once enjoyed vast popular support since they, in their formative years, voiced genuine grievances of the people such as poor governance, alienation, lack of development and an apathetic attitude from the central government; in recent years, however, this influence has been reduced. Nevertheless, in most of the states in the northeast, anti-government militants retain significant nuisance value and often indulge in successful strikes against government interests.

Security force operations using the army, state police forces and the paramilitary forces remain the preferred mode of official response to contain militancy. A strong military presence has been the feature of all the militancy-affected states in the region. The Union government, as a matter of policy, reimburses security-related expenditure incurred by the states. It also has an ongoing program for the modernization of the state police forces that sometimes possess weapons of lesser sophistication than the militants.

Military operations in Nagaland, too, resulted in civilian fatalities and large-scale displacement. In Assam, in the beginning of the 1990s, two military operations, Operation Rhino and Operation Bajrang, were launched against U.L.F.A. militants. This forced U.L.F.A. to move out of the state and locate itself in areas outside the country. However, such operations have not been able to post conclusive gains against militancy in any of the states. In states like Manipur, militants have been able to carve out vast stretches of “liberated zones” where only their laws and dictates hold sway.

While the government’s military options have achieved only minimal results, lack of development continues to alienate the people of the region further from the mainstream. The region has also received little attention from either the national or the international media. Achievements by a separate ministry created by the Indian government for the development of the region remain minimal. On 9 June 2015, India announced that it had conducted a cross-border operation against insurgents belonging to NSCN-K.

Terrorism targets persons and property normally considered protected under the laws of war. Whether used as a strategic end, true terrorism, sociologically speaking or as a weapons system within a larger insurgent campaign, terror confronts the state with the same challenge: how to create a security net or grid that negates the perpetrators’ ability to choose time and place. Critical restraints are manpower and resources.

On the one hand, terror, as the driving force of insurgency by radical Islamic elements appears to continue unabated in this, India’s northern-most State. On the other hand, disaggregating the case demonstrates that India, after much experience, has evolved an effective response posture. This is particularly visible in Jammu, the southern division of the larger J&K. The insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir is an uprising or revolt against the Indian administration of Jammu and Kashmir a region constituting the southern portion of the larger Kashmir region, which has been the subject of a dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947.

More explicitly, the roots of the insurgency are tied to a dispute over local autonomy. Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s and by 1988 many of the democratic reforms provided by the Indian government had been reversed and non-violent channels for expressing discontent were limited and caused a dramatic increase in support for insurgents advocating violent secession from India. In 1987, a disputed State election created a catalyst for the insurgency when it resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly members forming armed insurgent groups.

Pakistan claims to be giving its "moral and diplomatic" support to the separatist movement. The ISI of Pakistan has been accused by India and the international community of supporting, supplying arms and training Mujahedeen to fight in Jammu and Kashmir. In 2015, former President of Pakistan Pervez Musharaf admitted that Pakistan had supported and trained insurgent groups in the 1990s.

This had happened partly due to a large number of Islamic "Jihadi" fighters (mujahadeen) who had entered the Kashmir valley following the end of the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s.The conflict between the militants and the Indian forces have led to large number of casualties.

The Naxalite movement in India owes its origins to a small village in West Bengal called Naxalbari and thus, the movement acquired its name. The year was 1967 when a small group of Communist Party of India (Marxist) members led by Charu Mazumdar, Kanu Sanyal and Jangal Santhal decided to initiate an armed struggle against large landowners and forcibly take away their lands and re-distribute it amongst the landless. Kanu Sanyal call for an armed struggle got its first voice of support from Jangal Santhal, who at that time was the President of Siliguri Kisan Sabha.

The government completely failed to read the situation and this is borne out by the statement in Lok Sabha on June 13 1967, by the then Home Minister Y.B.Chavan, where he stated that this was a case of lawlessness and should be contained and crushed by the local police force. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warned, “Naxalism is the greatest threat to our internal security.” The credit for the survival of the movement for over 40 years must go to the Government, which has failed abysmally in addressing the causes and conditions that sustain the movement.

The government under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967 amended in 2004 has banned the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) - People's War and all its associated formations, and the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) and its front organizations. The government has also constituted a Task force which will comprise of Nodal officers from the Naxal affected areas and officers from the IB, SSB and the CRPF. There is also a Coordination Centre that was set up in 1998 headed by the Union home minister with Chief Secretaries and DGPs of the Naxal affected areas for the coordination of steps taken to control Naxal activities. The government has laid down a clear plan to tackle the left-wing extremism.

Various Acts and Constitutional Provisionsto Curb Non-State Actors

Section 124Aof the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for sedition. The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, under the colonial rule. Section 124A forms part of Chapter VI of the Code which deals with offences against the state. Chapter VI comprises sections from 121 to 130, wherein section 121A and 124A were introduced in 1870. The then British government in India feared that Muslim preachers on the Indian subcontinent would wage a war against the government. Throughout the Raj, this section was used to suppress activists in favour of freedom movement including Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom were found guilty and imprisoned. The section kept drawing criticism in the independent India as well for being a hindrance to the right to freedom of speech and expression.

In the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh Vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India, upholding the constitutional validity of 124A, ruled that a person could be prosecuted if they “incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace”. In its third attempt to determine the validity of sedition, earlier last year, the Law Commission of India observed that while dissent is essential to any democracy, law enforcement agencies must use sedition law judiciously.

While the powers of the Law Commission of India are limited to providing suggestions and recommendations only, the Parliament of India, the law-making body of the government, and the judiciary, the custodian of human rights, ought to revisit the justification of this provision.

In 2015, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which criminalised online speech considered “grossly offensive”, “menacing”, and caused “annoyance”, was struck down as unconstitutional due to the ambiguity of such terms. The Supreme Court of India held that any restrictions on speech could only be deemed reasonable under Section 19(2) of the Constitution of India. While the sedition law suffers a similar problem with definition, along with a lack of procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court has argued time and again that seditious words or actions are likely to threaten public order or incite violence, which is a reasonable restriction on free speech.

Armed Forces Special Power Act was enacted in1958 which is still implemented in several North-eastern states and Jammu and Kashmir despite several protest from the citizens. COFEPOSA in 1974, MISA in 1971 and National Security Act 1980 are part of the Act to suppress insurgencies and other unlawful activities which wage war against the state. Sixteenth Amendment Act 1963empowered the state to make laws with regards to ‘reasonable limitation’ on certain Fundamental Rights Art. 19 (1) (a) , (b),( c) in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India. In 1967, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was passed which enhanced the central executive to prosecute those who indulged in unlawful activities and associations such as any secessionist movement through words or signs.

Coercive force though might sometime pose endanger and threats to the civil liberties and rights, it is still useful in situations of imminent danger. In the case of India there are various terrorist group and separatist movement, it is the duty of the state to protect its territory and people from such danger. Forces ensures compliance but can also delegitimize the state. Like the parents are rendered to some form of punishment to their children and even counter sometime if they disobey the laws for correcting them. Coercion also useful when dispute involves something of great value to the threatened.

 

India is a democratic nation where people are enjoying certain liberties and rights, the state interference just for mere exercising of freedom and rights is unjustifiable whereas there are certain section of the constitutional provisions that needs amendment to go inline with the change in society and cultural advancement. In a democracy, which is based on consent, state leaders have to be judicious in the use of force, otherwise the very stability of the state might be threatened. Frequent used of state instrument to limit the exercise of civil liberties should be check by the law institution like High Court and Supreme Court. In India, when the legislative and executive means to get justice got exhausted, still there we have a legal institution to have a final word on the grievance of the people.