Shopian firing: Why FIR against Army is nothing but a political stunt

With one more youth having succumbed to injures, the toll of civilians killed Army firing in south Kashmir’s Shopian district has risen to three. And so has risen the clamour over filing of “murder case” against the accused Army soldiers.

The Jammu and Kashmir Police have filed an FIR under sections 336 (endangering life or personal safety of others), 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (which is similar to the Indian Penal Code but applicable only in J&K) against the Army's 10th Garhwal unit for opening fire on civilians on January 27, even as the Army PRO claims that soldiers fired in “self-defence” as a mob of around 250 tried to “lynch” a junior commissioned officer.

The civilian killings, followed by protests and subsequent filing of FIR, have snowballed into a major controversy. While chief minister Mehbooba Mufti, who is also the president of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party, said the “case will be taken to its logical conclusion”, coalition partner and ruling party at Centre, the BJP, has demanded immediate withdrawal of the FIR.

The Opposition National Conference, on the other hand, while condemning the civilian killings has sought immediate arrest of the accused soldiers.

At the national level, the registration of FIR against Army is being seen as an insult to "patriots" defending the country.

But then, is the Army as an institution, above law that a case can’t be filed against its soldiers for allegations as serious as murder? If’s there’s no element of guilt, why should the Army be unwilling to undergo trial and let the law take its course? 

The question now is if the police FIR will have any legal implications on the accused soldiers? Well, no.

In Kashmir, armed forces, including the Army, enjoy the cover of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), a controversial law which gives the men in uniform the licence to act with impunity and commit human rights violations. For decades soldiers who have committed gross human rights violations, including murders and rapes, have managed to hide behind its protective clauses.

Much in line with the convention, since 1990s when AFSPA was invoked in Kashmir at the onset of armed insurgency, the accused soldiers this time too won’t face any execution even if "desired" by a civil court. And then, there is Army chief general Bipin Rawat, who is accused of overstepping his authority on Kashmir.

Exactly when the “murder case” was filed, he said his forces have been taking “adequate precautions in protecting human rights” adding that “time has not come for any rethink” on AFSPA.

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day speech on August 15, 2017, had said that alienated people of Kashmir need a “hug”, Army chief Rawat continued to look at Kashmiri protesters as "over-ground workers of militants".

On February 15, 2017, he said that civilians obstructing military operations would be dealt with as over-ground workers (OGWs) of terrorists. But what does OGW mean to the world’s third-largest Army? Well, both militants and OGWs are treated as “deadly outlaws”, either arrested or eliminated.

Kashmir has been a frequent witness to armed forces justifying civilian killings by labelling them as OGWs. In April 2015, when slain Hizbul commander Burhan Muzaffar Wani’s brother Muhammad Khalid Wani was killed, the Army defended the killing saying he was a "listed OGW and not a civilian". Sadly, the situation in Kashmir continues to be fragile since the killing of Burhan on July 8, 2016, when the Valley erupted in protests, leaving behind a trail of death, destruction and a fresh wave of sympathy for militants.

In the past 15 months alone, at least 19 other civilians were killed near encounter sites when they tried to salvage the besieged militants.

At a time when Shopian killings are in news, a video of an “Army officer” bragging about bloodshed and violence, has gone viral.

In the video titled “Shanti vanti chodo (Forget peace)”, the man in uniform boasts: “We were falling for things like peace... It has been my record that wherever I go, there has been bloodshed. So, I am not satisfied unless there is bloodshed.”

Significantly, the timing of the video also looks very fishy. For the past one year, similar clippings have surfaced when tension over alleged rights abuse peaked in the Valley.

On May 26, 2017, when eight civilians were killed in firing by security forces during parliamentary polls for central Kashmir constituency, visuals surfaced of a voter, Farooq Ahmed Dar, being used as a human shield by Army major Leetul Gogoi. The Army chief had then defended his subordinate saying that the use of human shield was a wise decision as his forces are fighting a “dirty war” in Kashmir. And despite an FIR filed against Gogoi, the Army major was never put on trial.

Despite the appointment of former IB chief Dineshwar Sharma as interlocutor, peace continues to be a distant dream in Kashmir. In December 2017, in yet another peace initiative, the government announced amnesty for 4,327 first-time stone-pelters. Amid debate over the grant of amnesty, three new “stone-pelters” have been killed.

However, this time around, Mehbooba Mufti has backed the FIR against Army. But then the fact that the Assembly session is underway has also not gone unnoticed.

Much against the general perception that the present controversy has widened the chasms between the PDP and the BJP, an underhand pact between the two alliance partners, which in reality enjoy good terms despite the visible infightings, cannot be ruled out.

Soon after the Shopian incident, chief minister Mehbooba Mufti had called Union defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman to express her anguish over the civilian deaths. But no one knows what exactly transpired between the two. Mufti’s stand on killings has often been ambiguous. Despite getting over 200 militants eliminated within a year, during the India Ideas Conclave-2017, she said her state needs a “healing touch” rather than a military policy focused on eliminating militants.

In 2016, when the then ADGP, SM Sahai, told mediapersons that Mufti was privy to the operation that eliminated Burhan, Sahai, who had proved his mettle in tackling three unrests in Kashmir, was sent on central deputation even as the Valley was burning.

As of now, it seems the FIR will benefit the ruling PDP-BJP alliance the most. While the PDP will take credit for filing an FIR against the Army - sending out the message that the Army has not been spared for the killings - the BJP will prop up its arguments on patriotism to back the Army, which already enjoys the impenetrable AFSPA cover.

Also read: We live in a dark and depressing world where 8 month old infants are raped and brutalised