What is wrong in tying a man to the front of a jeep?

Yesterday on a television debate on the tying of a man to the front of a jeep in Kashmir, I made the point that while the Army Major may have done it as a desperate measure when he found himself in a crisis situation (this itself is disputed) he should not have been given a commendation by the Army. I was met by a torrent of abuse on social media and on the show itself, the anchors (with an eye on the TRPs) and even a retired General justified the commendation. The incident itself happened in April and there was a 16 second video put out on social media.

Here are a few FAQs on the issue.

1. Was Farooq Ahmed Dar, the man tied to the front of the jeep and used as a human shield a stone pelter?

Ans: This is strongly disputed and appears unlikely. He has repeatedly said that he was picked up as he was on his way to a condolence meeting after voting earlier in the day(He has produced voter slip No.612 as proof) and there are several media interviews with him. In an election where 7% voted and Dar was one among them it begs the question why should a stone pelter cast his vote? Also the video on social media did not show any stone pelting or mobs at all. Even if he was a stone pelter for which there is no evidence whatsoever the answers to the questions below will attempt to find out if the action was justified.

2. Major Gogoi found himself in a difficult situation, several Government officials were trapped and he had to make this desperate decision. What was wrong with it?

Ans: There are two versions as to what happened. One is the version of Major Gogoi which the Army never officially put out for very long. Today he was speaking to the media. According to this version a party of EC officials conducting elections finding themselves surrounded by a mob of 600 or so stone pelters, sent an SOS to the Army asking to be rescued. A 16 member Army team led by Major Gogoi arrived and finding themselves outnumbered adopted this desperate measure to get the officials out safely. This version is riddled with holes but for the moment let us stick with it.

Even assuming that the decision was made in a desperate attempt to save lives,the placing of a placard around the neck of Farooq Dar with some words on it(some reports said the words were “I am a stone pelter”) and the audio in the background in the video saying, “Those who pelt stones will meet the same fate”,do not seem to indicate this as a desperate measure to get out of a crisis situation.

Further Dar said he was paraded through several villages tied to the front of the jeep for almost four hours. Dar even gave the names of the villages he was paraded through Sonpa, Najan, Chakpora, Hanjiguroo, Khospora, Rawalpora, Arizal and Hardapanzoo (According to a report in “The Wire”) This too does not add up to the claim that Major Gogoi was trying to get out of a desperate situation and save lives.

3. But our soldiers are being kicked and pelted with stones everyday in Kashmir. Is this justifiable?

Ans: Clearly stone pelting is not acceptable and is to be strongly condemned but the stone pelters will have to be dealt with by the Army, the para military forces and the Police as per the law of the land. They can arrest the stone pelters and prosecute them. If required stronger action including in extreme cases,if the lives of the armed forces are in danger,firing, can also be taken as deemed necessary.

4. What is wrong in honoring the Major? His action saved lives.

(Though the Army says he is not being honored for this incident they say they have taken into account the early findings of the inquiry commission into this as well)

Ans: With the entire version of events being disputed we do not even know if this is true and that lives were indeed saved. Even if what the Major says is true, the means adopted, by using a human shield constitutes a war crime as defined in the Geneva Conventions (India is a signatory) even between armies in a war let alone against a civilian in peace time. There is an FIR pending against unknown persons for this incident and the Army has ordered an Internal Commission of Inquiry.What kind of a signal does honoring the man now send? How can the Inquiries be done in an even handed way when the Major is being commended? Will it also not tell other soldiers that such acts are acceptable?

5. People who criticize our Army are surely anti-national. After all these critics sit thousands of kilometres away in comfort and pass comments. Do they know what the Army troops are facing every day?

Ans: Our Army is one of the best professional armies in the world. It is known for its tremendous resilience and discipline. It is an insult to our Army to say that they cannot handle stone pelters without using human shields. In fact those who justify this act are those who are insulting the Indian Army. Our Army is more than capable of dealing with the stone pelters without having to resort to such measures. Also the Indian Army has faced several much more difficult situations in the past, including the wars they have fought and has come out with flying colours. This act must be seen either as an error of judgement or as a one off measure taken in desperation. We also need to realize that this video will be used by enemies of our country at International fora to tarnish the image of the Indian Army and Government.

As for critics sitting miles away passing comments we need to understand that this is an issue that could affect us all as it pertains to what is and what is not acceptable in our country. This could potentially happen in another region, say the North east. Would it still be acceptable then or are we taking a different view because this is Kashmir? If we want the law changed to permit using civilians as human shields then perhaps some can ask for that but this would be clearly violating International law.

6. When stone pelters and terrorists can use inhuman methods why should the Army alone show restraint? Don’t we need to show them we can also do the same acts they do?

Ans: The Armed forces of any Nation are bound to operate within the laws of that country, the laws of combat and engagement. There are rules for what is and what is not acceptable in a conflict situation. There are checks and balances to ensure that the Armed Forces are disciplined and accountable. One never equates the barbarism of a terrorist to the disciplined aggression of an Army.

It is sad to see so many people supporting what in a civilized society cannot be defended. The Major may have acted in self defense and in a desperate situation and if so the action can at best be condoned. It must not be celebrated.

This story originally appeared in Sumanth Raman’s Facebook Page and was re-posted here with his permission.