Countering the FIR against the army in Kashmir (English Version) Rakshak News 15 Feb 18
Post the Shopian firing incident, in retaliation to stone pelting, resulting in two deaths, the state lodged an FIR against army personnel including the officer who was leading the convoy, even though the officer was not present at the scene of the incident. The mob attempted to snatch army weapons and even tried to lynch the JCO leading the convoy, resulting in the firing.
The father of the officer named in the FIR, filed a petition against the state in the Supreme Court, challenging the FIR. Simultaneously, a few army brats (children of army personnel) have approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) seeking equal rights and protection for security personnel involved in operations in the valley. The supreme court has stayed the FIR and sought a reply from the state and centre.
Many have argued that the FIR is only a means of investigation and not a charge against the army. However, the fact that they are solely being investigated and not those who commenced the stone throwing, resulting in the ensuing firing in self-defence, has caused anger within the nation. Self-defence, apart from being protected by AFSPA is also legal under the CPC. This clearly is an indication of the bias against the army with the state leadership seeking to gain political mileage from the incident.
There were initial reports of a counter FIR filed by the army, which was subsequently cleared to imply that the army’s version was noted in the same FIR. The army is there for a task, not to indulge in hurting local sentiments. It cannot be involved in handling legal issues, when evidence of damaged vehicles, injured soldiers and stone littered streets are easily available as evidence. If the army had opened fire first, there would have been no such evidence, as the crowd would have dispersed, without pelting a single stone. This is clearly indicative of their retaliating to provocations.
The question which arises is why the father of the officer and army brats should approach the courts and the NHRC, which should have been done by the MoD and the army themselves. The army is not deployed in anti-militancy tasks of its own choosing. AFSPA is in force because other security agencies could not control the situation and desired the deployment of the army, the ultimate power of the state. Even Mehbooba Mufti announced recently in the J and K assembly that the time is not right for lifting AFSPA. It is known that the army would never open fire, unless targeted and once it does, it fires for effect at select ring leaders.
The action by the state government was clearly aimed at impacting army morale, while assuaging locals who were involved. The fact that the state government has withdrawn all charges against the thousands involved in stone pelting would only give the youth further incentive to act, knowing that they would never be charged. It would also enable the Hurriyat to incite more with even less monetary offers, as they are certain that no legal action would be taken against them.
The claims by the local public that those killed or injured were not pelting stones but were bystanders is again illogical. Stone throwing is not akin to a sporting event which the public watches from ring side seats. The army targets those who are at the forefront of the action, hence specific individuals.
The state government has openly demonstrated that though it desires the army to operate, it would remain biased against it and support its own. The silence of the centre and the army authorities on the issue forced the father and other army brats to seek legal support. While the nation has welcomed the supreme court’s decision, however the silence of the MoD and senior army officials would impact morale of those serving in the region. It is time that the army releases its version of the incident to the nation, clarifying its stand and defending those who were targeted.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army