Rajpal ji, both the people of J&K and the security forces are indeed citizens of the state in the traditional sense. With regards to AFSPA, its proponents think it helps the state and its opponents think otherwise.
But let me also tell you sometimes there is a difference between 'the State' and 'the people'. The power holders - bureaucracy, political leadership, the security forces comprise 'the state' and the general public for which the former are created but often end up on opposing sides are 'the people'. Most of the problems that our country faces are essentially conflicts between these two.
So called violation of human rights? Are you ignoring or underplaying the fact that the Army has committed human rights violations? Please research and you will find out many such cases.
He politically belongs to the AAP, not personally. Please understand the difference.
Regarding Bhushan's efforts to generate controversy to remain the news, neither your nor I know him personally. So we cant say for sure. It may help to learn more about his background though. He has always been outspoken about his views. At the same time he has an illustrious background as a lawyer picking up many cases for the benefits of the general public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prashant_Bhushan
[h=2]Career[edit][/h]Bhushan began practising as an advocate in the Supreme Court of India in 1983, specialising in Public Interest Litigation. His main areas of interest have been Human Rights, the Environment and ensuring that public servants are accountable. He is associated with various organisations including the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), People's Union for Civil Liberties,Committee on Judicial Accountability and Transparency International (India).[SUP][4][/SUP] As of 2012 Bhushan was the convenor of the Working Committee of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms.[SUP][5][/SUP]
[h=3]Centre for Public Interest Litigation[edit][/h]Bhushan has acted as an advocate for the CPIL on several occasions, an example being in October 1997, when the Delhi High Court heard a CPIL petition over the award of contracts to Enronand Reliance Industries to develop the Panna-Mukta oilfield, and issued notices to the involved companies and government organisations.[SUP][6][/SUP]
CPIL won a major victory in 2003 when the Supreme Court restrained the Union government from privatising Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum without the approval of Parliament.[SUP][7][/SUP] As counsel for the CPIL, Rajinder Sachar and Bhushan argued that the only way to disinvest in the companies would be to repeal or amend the Acts by which they were nationalised in the 1970s.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Shanti and Prashant Bhushan were counsel for the CPIL when it sought a direction from the Supreme Court that Dalits who had converted to Christianity should be entitled to the same reservation they had enjoyed as members of Scheduled Castes. The Union government said this was purely a legislative matter but in February 2005 the Supreme Court decided to again review the constitutional issue.[SUP][9][/SUP]
In February 2005 Bhushan and Anil B. Divan were counsel for CPIL seeking quashing of the CVC Act, 2003, which requires the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to obtain permission from the Union government before registering corruption cases against senior bureaucrats. Bhushan argued that the act violated the basic rights of citizens and was counter to the rule of law. The Supreme Court referred the question to a constitution bench of five judges.[SUP][10][/SUP]
Bhushan represented the CPIL in a petition asking for the removal of Neera Yadav from office as Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh for alleged corruption. Yadav had been named in five CBI corruption cases and 23 departmental proceedings. In October 2005 the Supreme Court directed the Mulayam Singh state government to remove her from her position.[SUP][11][/SUP] The case became the first in which an Indian Administrative Service officer in Uttar Pradesh was convicted of corruption.[SUP][12][/SUP]
In 2006, Bhushan represented the CPIL in a petition alleging that Pepsico and Coca-Cola were failing to warn the public of harmful ingredients in their beverages, and were luring young children through misleading advertising.[SUP][13][/SUP]
In 2007, Bhushan filed a petition on behalf of the CPIL with the Delhi High Court to investigate whether there had been kickbacks in the 2005 Scorpene submarine deal. The High Court took a strong line with the investigating agency, saying "We feel dissatisfied with that you've done so far. If you've tried to shield someone, then we will come down very heavily on you".[SUP][14][/SUP]
Prashant Bhushan acted for the CPIL when it took the lead in filing a suit against the Government of India for irregularities in a major award of spectrum for 2G mobile telephones. The CPIL petition alleged that the government had lost $15.53 billion by issuing spectrum in 2008 based on 2001 prices, and by not following a competitive bidding process.[SUP][15][/SUP]
In September 2011 Bhushan presented evidence that appeared to disprove the claim by the CBI that Dayanidhi Maran, the former telecom minister, had not applied undue pressure to the owner of Aircel to sell to the Maxis group of Malaysia. Bhushan said the CBI's investigation had been "less than honest".[SUP][16][/SUP]
In January 2012 Bhushan questioned why the CBI had failed to lay charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act against companies such as Essar Group and Loop Mobile despite strong evidence against them.[SUP][17][/SUP] In February 2012 the Supreme Court declared the allocation of spectrum had been illegal.[SUP][18][/SUP]
