Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma.
Credit: PTI File Photo
The Assam government’s decision to grant arms licences to “original inhabitants” and “indigenous” citizens who reside in remote areas near the Bangladesh border is misconceived and dangerous. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sharma has said that his government would first define and then identify the locations likely to fall within the ambit of the scheme. The claimed aim of the scheme is to extend security to people and communities rendered vulnerable by unrest and demographic shifts. Another cited reason is the trouble in neighbouring Bangladesh and its repercussions in the border areas. It is stated that the scheme, essentially the arming of sections of people, will help to protect the ‘identity, land and homeland’ of indigenous communities and original inhabitants of the state. Sharma has clarified that the scheme will not be implemented on inter-state borders.
Arming groups of people can have dangerous consequences. The claim that the arms are for self-defence cannot be accepted as genuine. In practical terms, there will not be much distinction between self-defence and offence. The arms can be misused or can fall into the wrong hands. Assam and the other North-Eastern states have witnessed insurgency-related violence for many decades. Even now, insurgency is active in some pockets and it will not be difficult for the insurgents to snatch the arms given to civilians. The government will not be able to track the movement of arms after they are supplied.
Even the identification of persons who should be given the arms will be difficult, and the norms the government formulates are likely to be violated from the beginning.
Specific rules and restrictions govern the possession and use of arms in the country. The right to keep and use arms is limited to the government and its agencies such as the law enforcement bodies and the defence forces. Armed licences are issued to individuals for self-protection in limited numbers after rigorous scrutiny. There is no law that authorises distribution of arms to groups of people and communities. The experience of arming groups such as Salva Judum in Chhattisgarh, a civilian militia intended to counter the Maoists, is disastrous. The Supreme Court declared the policy illegal.
One of the reasons for the unrest in Manipur is that arms robbed from government armouries keep things on the boil. Above all, it is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. It has to fulfil that responsibility. Arming the citizens and telling them to protect
themselves is not one of them. That shows the failure of the government.