Projection of security forces views are essential (English Version) Rakshak News 06 Jun 18
Article Read Time
The recent incident when a mob, emerging from Friday prayers in downtown Srinagar surrounded and attacked a CRPF gypsy with stones, compelling the driver to rush away to avoid being lynched, which in the bargain ran over a youth trying to block its path was blamed by a section of the media as the highhandedness of security forces. The report however failed to project the truth from the angle of those who were trapped inside the vehicle, worried about the consequences of being overrun by a blood thirsty mob.
Omar Abdullah went on to tweet, ‘Earlier they tied people to jeeps and paraded them around villages to deter protestors, now they just drive their jeeps right over protestors. Ceasefire means no guns, so just use jeeps.’ The jeep was in the city and had a right to be there. It is not that the city has been handed over to mobs to behave as they desired. Law and order must be maintained, ceasefire or no ceasefire.
The same story occurred when Major Gogoi tied one individual to his jeep. Media hounded the army, but never took the views of polling officials whom Gogoi had come to rescue. Human rights activists and local politicians lambasted Gogoi, claiming violation of human rights, never concerned about the rights of those trapped and fearing for their lives. The polling officials, who were also locals and tasked by the government to be there, were neither interviewed, nor their fears projected.
Similar was the incident when a party of Garhwal soldiers trapped by a blood thirsty mob, which almost lynched a JCO, compelled troops to open fire in self-defence, led to a FIR being filed against the soldiers, not stone pelters. It was the supreme court which intervened to quash the FIR.
Comments by the army chief when he supports his forces on their actions are countered by politicians and media as being biased and politically motivated. Comments have been made to the extent that he is the mouthpiece of the government and is encouraging use of force. What is ignored is that on every occasion he has called a spade a spade, despite any criticism.
Post the encounter leading to the death on Burhan Wani and subsequent violence, the security forces were blamed for excessive use of force. Interviews of those injured in the protests were projected in a manner that they were bystanders or those out on a task and not stone pelters nor involved in the violence in any way.
Stone pelting is neither a football or cricket match being observed from the side lines. Security forces target those closest pelting stones, not those on the side lines. It is surprising that anti-security force views were so easily projected, missing out the obvious.
In the recent opening of cantonment roads case, views of the local population inconvenienced by army actions gained more prominence than the reasons for closures. Even newspaper editorials went against the army claiming it was behaving akin to British times. An editorial even threatened the army that more skeletons would tumble out of its closets, now that its gates are open. One of the reasons for the defence minister to adopt a unilateral decision was media outrage against the army.
In rare cases, mainly by those who have been a part of the service, were its own fears and views projected. Even the worries of military families residing in cantonments were ignored. Pak spies would no longer need to worry about obtaining access to cantonments to collect details, they are open to everyone. Military activities would no longer remain restricted but would be done under full public glare.
The unilateral decision by Nirmala led to an astonishing display of celebration by a section of the BJP, in Pune and Danapur in Bihar, on having forced the opening of cantonments. The celebration included distributing sweets and moving large columns of vehicles with party flags through cantonments. Ironically, the local BJP cadre was celebrating a victory over its own Indian army, the force which has stood by the nation for the last seven decades.
The defence ministry refuses to listen to its own forces, preferring votes over safety of families in cantonments. Security forces are blamed for their actions by politicians and media while political parties celebrate when decisions have enhanced its vulnerabilities. Is this the future of this nation?
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army