Re-visiting the Gogoi incident (English Version) Rakshak News 18 Apr 18
The Hindu published an article last week entitled, ‘One year on, life in shreds for human shield’. The article is based on a recent interview with Farooq Dar, the individual who was tied to a jeep by Major Gogoi a year ago, during the by-elections to rescue a team of security and election staff trapped in a booth and threatened by a mob, which was pelting them with stones.
In the interview Ahmed Dar claims, ‘What was my mistake? Going to a polling booth and casting my ballot? I am unable to sleep. Even medicines are ineffective. No one is giving me any work. The government is silent, and the judiciary is moving at its own pace. At times, I wonder whether such an act of cowardice could be rewarded by the army. Is this the message that India wants to send to Kashmir?’
Two incidents, spread over a short period of time in the same region would indicate the illogical manner in which the state government and our so-called Human Rights critics operate. When Gogoi rushed in to rescue those trapped in a small polling booth, surrounded by a mob, armed with stones, he realized that unless he operates out of the box, there would be casualties.
He did just that, picked up the nearest stone thrower, tied him to his jeep, surprising the crowd and rushed the team off to safety. He would never pick an innocent bystander, as he neither had time nor was it worth the risk. It was the nearest and most volatile member of the crowd which he selected, thus stunning everyone into silence.
His action impacting one individual, who subsequently gained international limelight, saved countless lives. He could have opened fire, to save lives of security forces and polling staff, which was also justifiable.
No journalist or Human Rights activist has interviewed the polling officials who were rescued. Had they been interviewed the nation would have heard of the trauma and near-death experience faced by them which would haunt them through their lives. They would never attend a similar duty, despite any pressure from the government. They were not outsiders, but locals, similar to those who pelted stones, sent to perform a constitutional duty, which they could not refuse.
On the other hand, a column of Garhwal regiment soldiers trapped and facing stone throwers, who even injured a few of them, retaliated by opening fire, solely in self-defence and were charged and booked for this action. The Chief Minister ordered the lodging of the FIR. It was lodged against the column commander who was not even present at the site, Major Aditya. It was the supreme court which forced the state government to set aside their investigation.
Hence arises the question, which action is better, firing to kill or adopting an out of the box solution to save lives.
If viewed in hindsight, had Gogoi opened fire, he would have been charged for the same. He saved lives but has been criticized by Human Rights activists. The state government and its PDP leadership, has criticized both actions but would never be able to suggest any alternative. To fire is a crime, to save lives by thinking out of the box is also a crime. This parody continues to dominate discussions even to this day.
The army chief lauding Gogoi was conveying a message of supporting an out of the box approach, so long as it saved precious lives. It was not appreciating the act per-se. In the future there would be other incidents, some of which may demand an approach which could save lives. It may be more difficult, with greater risk to security forces, but if adopted, careless and instigated youth may not suffer.
If lives need to be saved then security forces must act out of the box, especially in emergency and life-threatening situations. Questioning the decision and action of an individual who acted in good faith, would impact the functioning of the force, seeking to bring normalcy in an area, where external influence plays a crucial role. The end state is ultimately the one which counts and in the Gogoi incident, the tying of one individual, saved multiple lives. What would have been better, one individual tied, or multiple lives lost? Maybe the critics may seek to answer?
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army