In Kashmir, concern for the rights of army personnel glosses over the human rights of civilians
Gautam Navlakha
AN ominous sign of jingoism triumphing over the course of justice in Kashmir is the simulated concern over an army officer’s plight against whom an FIR (first information report) was sought to be filed after the firing incident on 27 January in Gawanpora village of Shopian district. On 12 February, a petition seeking to “protect the morale of the soldiers” was heard by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of India.
The Court ruled in an ex parte order that no “coercive action” be initiated against Major Aditya Kumar of 10 Garhwal Rifles by the Jammu and Kashmir Police. A few days earlier, on 9 February, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) decided to enquire into “stone pelting and assault by an unruly and disruptive mob on army personnel” in response to a petition filed by children of serving armed forces officers and agreed that “the issue of safety of soldiers” deserves consideration. By raking up the human rights of armed soldiers in a conflict area where they also exercise the right to kill on mere suspicion, the denial of justice to civilian victims is being glossed over. With a stay on investigation, even recording of a complaint is now forbidden.
In a statement on 28 January, the Indian Army defended the 27 January firing and insisted they had followed “standard operating procedure.” Three young men, Javed Ahmed Bhat, Suhail Javed Lone and Rayees Ahmed Ganai died in army firing. The army claims that they were “constrained to open fire in self-defence to prevent lynching of a junior commissioned officer (JCO) and burning of vehicle by mob.” But this claim was not backed by any detail.
The facts tell a different story. On 29 January, Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti informed the assembly that the police had advised the army to avoid the Gawanpora route in view of the tension following the killing of two Hizbul Mujahideen militants in a firefight on 24 January in Chaigund. One of the two militants killed that day was a resident of Gawanpora. At Chaigund, the 44RR had killed not just the two militants but also injured three civilians. As a consequence, passions were already running high in the area at the loss of local militants as well as civilian casualties.
The army ignored the police advisory. The first army convoy that passed through the village in the morning had a fracas with locals over posters paying tribute to the local militant. Around 3.30 pm, a convoy of 10 Garhwal Regiment led by Major Aditya Kumar decided to travel through Gawanpora. In an already volatile situation, taking the convoy twice through the same village was a reckless move. Civilian accounts also contest the army’s claim of lynching of the JCO, and wonder how it is possible to drag and lynch a soldier sitting inside an armoured vehicle. “Operation All Out” launched in May 2017 has resulted in killing of 217 militants, 108 civilians and 125 armed forces personnel. Nineteen out of 108 civilians were killed during encounters. Chaigund and Gawanpora witnessed five civilian deaths.
In any case, recording an FIR is only the first step. The investigation is seldom completed against armed forces personnel. Even if the investigation results in filing a charge sheet, the process comes to a grinding halt because criminal courts and the aggrieved civilians require permission of the central government to prosecute armed forces personnel. According to a written submission by the union minister of defence to the Rajya Sabha on 1 January 2018, of the 50 requests for sanction for prosecution of armed forces personnel, sanction was denied in 47 cases while in three cases the matter is pending. Seventeen cases pertained to killing of civilians, 16 to custodial killings, eight to custodial disappearance and four to alleged rape.
For 28 years, Jammu and Kashmir has remained a “Disturbed Area” where the army and the paramilitary forces have escaped accountability for the crimes they have perpetrated. That 28 years later this still continues is a sad commentary on the lack of political imagination of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) government. It is also testimony to the futility of seeking a military solution for something successive Indian governments have caused, prolonged and aggravated.
Javaid Ahmad Lone, the father of Suhail Lone of Gawanpora, told the Indian Express, “We don’t want anything from the government, we don’t need compensation, we don’t need any job and we don’t need any probe. It is their court, their army, their police and their administration.” When the aggrieved feel thus, to believe that the armed forces need protection is a cruel joke. Shopian shows that the groundswell of opinion in Kashmir remains resolutely opposed to military suppression. Paradoxically, with no democratic political solution in sight and justice denied, the desire of Kashmiris for “azaadi” stands vindicated.
(The article was first published in EPW. Gautam Navlakha is a member of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Delhi. The views expressed here are that of the author.)
