"The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them but to be indifferent towards them, that's the essence of inhumanity."- George Bernard Shaw

The draconian legislations that exist today seems to be intended to manufacture 'indifference'. India has several legislations that contributes to the 'idea of indifference', purporting to safeguard national security and public order to counter ambiguously defined threats. They contain provisions that are incompatible with the principles that form the basis of a democratic state. The National Security Act (NSA) of 1980 and Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) of 2002 embody this 'indifference' towards the fundamental tenets of modern jurisprudence - rule of law and liberty.

However, the legislation called the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) of 1958 incorporates a 'superior grade' of 'indifference' towards marginalised regions of the country. The AFSPA is driven by a colonial ideology. Its genesis lies in the ordinance issued by the colonial government in August 1942, to counter opposition to the war effort by the Congress, then leading the freedom movement. However, credit for replicating this colonial law that legitimises murder to meet perceived security concerns goes to the Congress government under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

It is an irony that, while efforts to repeal POTA has been successful, efforts to repeal the AFSPA over the last couple of decades, have been defeated time and again. One of the reasons for this 'indifference' is that the political constituency adversely affected by POTA is larger and politically more powerful. In contrast, those affected by the AFSPA, potentially the population of the seven States in the Northeastern region, account for less than 40 million. Further, this indifference was conditioned by the circular reasoning of Mr. G. B. Pant, then Union Home Minister who, while piloting the Bill, said:

"This is a very simple measure. It only seeks to protect the steps the armed forces might have to take in the disturbed areas... . It will be applied only to such parts as have been declared by the administrations concerned as being disturbed... After such a declaration has been made, then alone the provisions of this Bill will be applicable to that particular area. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more in this connection. It is a simple measure"

The 'Indifference' further resonates in the judgment of the Apex Court in 1997- Naga People's Movement, of Human Rights v. Union of India in which the constitutionality of the AFSPA was challenged. During hearing, the court did not entertain any documentary evidence of individual cases for illustration of the true picture. The North East accounts for a major share of the complaints against army and para-military forces, 17.5 percent in 2003 and 22.5 percent in 2004 (National Human Rights Commission Report). Further, while complaints against army and para military forces constitute a negligibly small fraction, less than 0.5% of the total number of complaints in the country as a whole, they are sizeable in the Northeastern states. Unfortunately, the court did not look at any documentary evidence, and was completely oblivious towards India's obligations under international law. While the court has actively endorsed customary international law and went ahead with trend-setting judicial legislation in a sexual harassment case, it did not discuss international law anywhere in its judgment, which was in disregard of India's obligation under the international law. The UN Human Rights Commission made a specific request to examine the compatibility of the provisions of the AFSPA with the ICCPR, when the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutionality of the AFSPA. This was brought to the notice of the court, but this did not find any mention in the judgment.

Thus the idea of 'indifference' obtains among all the three organs within the Constitution - legislature, executive and the judiciary - which are supposed to uphold the rule of law and liberty. The adage 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' has never been proven more correct than in the implementation of AFSPA. Though efforts to repeal the AFSPA have been unsuccessful, the only ray of hope at present is the report of the Committee to review this Act, which provides hope that "there is a light at the end of every tunnel."