The general goes ballistic

Army can't allow an atmosphere of impunity to take hold

A few days ago, Army Chief General Bipin Rawat defended Major Leetul Gogoi’s use of a Kashmiri as a human shield. He followed it up on Sunday by saying his men needed “innovative” ways to fight the “dirty war” in Kashmir and when people threw stones and petrol bombs at army personnel, the response couldn’t be to wait and die. Even more astonishing was his comments that he wished “these people, instead of throwing stones at us, were firing … Then I could do what I want to do”. Major Gogoi’s act was deeply embarrassing for a country that claims to be a liberal democratic republic. Whether he breached the conventions of war is for a court of inquiry to decide, and Major Gogoi has the right to defend himself there. However, that such behaviour with a citizen of India cannot be rewarded (Major Gogoi was given a commendation by the army brass) is blatantly obvious, regardless of the inquiry’s result. But General Rawat obviously thinks otherwise. Surely, treating non-combatants as combatants can’t be standard operating procedure in militancy-affected states.

Use of civilians as a way to discourage the enemy is nothing new; but most civilised countries have long abandoned it. Consider Israel. The Supreme Court in that country banned the use of human shields in 2002. Five years later after television released footage of a 24-year-old Palestinian, Sameh Amira, being used as a human shield by Israeli soldiers in Nablus, the Israeli army, after investigation, suspended the commander whose unit was involved. In 2010, Israeli defence forces prosecuted and convicted two staff sergeants for using civilians as human shields and handed them 18-month sentences. 

It’s extraordinary that the Indian army chief has proudly proclaimed that tying up perceived enemies to vehicles to ward off attackers can be a routine practice despite the fact that such actions have obvious human rights repercussions and can damage the moral authority of the army. If General Rawat’s remark was aimed at conveying a message to the country about the army’s position in the Valley or to the average Kashmiri that enough is enough, it was not required. Such an incident only points to an atmosphere of impunity whereby the army seems interested only in dispensing rough justice. That is precisely what General Rawat’s chosen messaging is doing. Promoting such blatantly wrong acts in this manner will lead to a free-for-all where the state and the army lose their authority and legitimacy — actual and moral. 

The only sensible thing General Rawat said was that the core issue of Kashmir was something that needed a composite solution and was a process in which everybody would have to get involved. That is where the political leadership at the Centre has to come in with some serious political engagement and outreach. The truth is Kashmiris don’t have the slightest confidence in what the political leaders say. So the first task before the government is to rebuild confidence in India’s commitment to religious pluralism in Kashmir. The hard reality is that a muscular policy – tough talk by ministers, dire warnings by the army chief, deploying more troops or killing protesters – will not resolve the Kashmir issue. And it’s not correct to place the complete burden on the army, which can aim to finish insurgents but can’t be expected to finish the insurgency.