Army’s reasons for defending Gogoi The Statesman 30 May 17
An incident can change a life, an incident can bring fame as also an incident can become a topic for a national debate which continues to simmer, long after it occurred, with no signs of dying down. The tying of Ahmed Dar to the jeep by Major Gogoi is one such. Proponents of the incident, salute the officer for his ingenuity and quick thinking, opponents including some senior veterans, criticize him for violating human rights. I am certain that if an online poll is conducted nationwide on pro or anti the action, the results would be astoundingly in his support.
The incident was explained in simple terms by an equally simple Gogoi to the media. He was detailed on a tactical mission to rescue a team of security and polling officials trapped in a room, surrounded by a mob of over four hundred, screaming for their blood, armed with stones and petrol bombs. His own Quick Reaction Team (QRT) was small but mobile. His intuitive actions had to be quick and fast, as delay in decision making could have resulted in multiple deaths, compelling the government to resort to firefighting at the national and international level. In such situations, it is instinct, based on experience and understanding which bring out the best in an individual.
The QRTs mine protected vehicle (which is heavier than others) got bogged down after the rescue and the men faced stones and petrol bombs. The soldiers were exposed as they attempted to free the vehicle. The mob was closing in. Major Gogoi then took the decision of tying an individual from the mob to his jeep, creating immediate confusion in local minds and drove to safety. Versions exist on whether Dar was an instigator or a bystander, who had defied militant diktat and cast his vote. The issue being raised is the action of tying.
To understand this confusion, we must place ourselves in the officer’s shoes. In the thick of chaos, with stones and petrol bombs raining down, is it feasible to question an individual on his intent and then take a call. It was simply instinct, right or wrong is not the question. It occurred in the midst of a crises when a rescue mission was in progress. Ahmed Dar, the victim, claims that he still carries mental scars of the incident. I wonder how many stones or petrol bombs fell on him. The answer is nil. He was tied to a jeep, with no bullets flying, taken some distance to the army camp, provided tea and released in the presence of his village elders, unharmed.
Scars would remain in the hearts of polling officials (who were also locals), ITBP and J and K police personnel, who were surrounded by a mob, baying for their blood. No one has ever considered the impact this incident would have on their mental state, as if they are cannon fodder. They were in the vehicle which was stuck and faced a flurry of stones and petrol bombs. Are they not humans and entitled human rights? Is it a crime to be nominated for polling duty? Sorry, pseudo human right activists, they are the ones who are scarred, having survived the most horrific moments of life. Ahmed Dar faced nothing, except being tied to a bonnet.
The other issue is that a simple tactical mission could have led to a strategic catastrophe had the officer not taken this decision. Had a petrol bomb struck the vehicle, casualties of security forces and polling officials would have been high and the only way out would have been opening fire. This could have resulted in dozens of casualties including locals, army and polling officials, as the army never carries pellet guns. It would have made international news and those criticizing the tying incident would have then stated, that the army was ruthless and employed excessive force.
For those who claim that this ‘action would haunt the army forever’ should remember that had firing occurred, the casualties would have ‘haunted the nation forever’ and resulted in an international furore. It would have become part of history books as the darkest day in the history of the Kashmir agitation and given a boost to Pakistan, the Hurriyat and the agitators. This one action, prevented that from happening.
Our critics possess tactical mindsets, unwilling to expand to strategic levels and access the aftermath in case Gogoi had behaved as expected. This is exactly what the army chief stated in his interview a few days ago. All I read in statements of those opposing is violation of human rights. It is easy to sit back and criticize decisions taken under duress and pressure. Tough situations demand tough and timely decisions, something which only leaders do. Gogoi took a decision in a difficult situation and deserves national applaud.
The other criticism doing the rounds is the army commending the officer for his action. This was intentional with multiple reasons. Firstly, as the COAS stated, it was to keep army morale high by conveying that the government, army and a majority of the nation stands by the officer. Secondly, was understanding that his action saved a strategic catastrophe and brought an extremely dangerous situation to control, without a single bullet being fired. Thirdly, for those who support the agitation, it implies that the army means business and would not permit agitators from gaining the upper hand. Finally, those who claim human rights were violated, that your perception is tactical and solely publicity seeking, hence we ignore you. Though symbolic, it was timely done.
For a soldier who is aware of such operations and pressure, I on behalf of almost all Indians salute Gogoi for his ingenuity and initiative. Major Gogoi, the nation is proud of you, you prevented casualties, rescued trapped comrades and saved lives of agitators. In the ultimate analysis, Human Rights activists have made Ahmed Dar a national figure, while the scarred polling officials who witnessed almost certain death, remain nameless and ignored. Sadly, a biased approach.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army