​Wrong call: On Assam and arming civilians

The Hindu

2 days ago

The decision by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Assam government to issue arms licences to 'eligible' indigenous communities in remote and vulnerable areas in the State is fraught with danger. The State government seems to suggest that indigenous communities living in the border areas abutting Bangladesh are vulnerable and that armed licences would be a deterrent and improve their personal safety and confidence. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has also insisted that these grants would not be for people near inter-State borders in Assam. But these caveats still do not take away from the fact that arming specific civilian groups is liable to be rampantly misused for acts such as vigilantism and inter-community rivalry, as the lines between law enforcement — which carries legal authority and has a monopoly over armed instruments — and private citizens are blurred. In a State that has been beset with insurgent violence and where the threat from groups such as the ULFA (Independent) remains, introducing more arms into civilian hands risks propagating further violence and arms proliferation rather than ensuring enhanced security. Instead of arming civilians, ostensibly for self-defence — a move akin to abdicating its core responsibility — the State government has the clear alternative of enhancing its own law enforcement and security presence in these 'vulnerable areas'.
It is well understood that in modern states, the monopoly over instruments of violence will remain with the government and its law enforcement agencies. In India, arms licences are issued in a restricted manner as a delegated and a limited right to self-preservation to select individuals through a stringent licensing process under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016. These rules under the law preclude the provision of such licences to larger, identified groups — where identification itself could be fraught with the risk of conflicts — as they not only present administrative challenges but also make it difficult for the government to license, monitor and recover firearms as the law requires it to. Arming civilian groups, even with an intention to do so with some stringent implementation, runs the risks of having these weapons entering grey markets and falling into the wrong hands, besides designating those groups with an authority that could backfire on the state. This was evident when security forces in Chhattisgarh arming civilian groups for protection against the Maoist threat — in the Salwa Judum campaign in the late 2000s — led to severe human rights violations and lawlessness, before the Supreme Court of India intervened to deem the policy to be illegal. Considering these problems, Assam must reverse its decision.