It is far too easy to blame Indian Army, difficult to understand ground reality in Kashmir
Recent videos emerging from the troubled Kashmir valley are a mixed bag. Some show violent actions by locals throwing stones, insulting security forces and even manhandling them, while others indicate highhandedness of the Army, including tying of a local in front of a jeep to ward off stone-throwers, manhandling them or making them chant pro-India slogans.
These received varied comments in the media, depending on the leaning of media houses. A recent statement by a retired senior general of the Army on Twitter claiming that the vehicle tying incident would haunt the army for years to come, unleashed an upsurge of comments, some positive and some negative.
For armchair strategists, media personalities and politicians located far from the line of fire, sitting in air conditioned offices, it is easy to comment on the security forces.
Statements including "irrespective of provocation, the Army must show tolerance" make excellent reading, but avoid the reality on the ground. This in no way indicates that the Army was justified in its actions nor am I advocating the reverse.
The reader needs to comprehend the circumstances under which such situations occur to make his own assessment, rather than be influenced by comments of safely ensconced writers.
Officers and soldiers deployed in counter insurgency roles as part of the Rashtriya Rifles are on deputation from their main units for a fixed duration. During induction into the Valley, they undergo a rigorous capsule to enable them to discharge their duties in a tenure fraught with tension.
Apart from understanding the nature of operations and tactics of militants, they are also engrained with concepts of employment of minimum force when handling mob-like situations.
However, unlike most other nations battling militancy - Pakistan, China, Russia, Myanmar and Philippines in the near vicinity - Indian soldiers fight with their hands tied behind. They only use small arms, as against other nations employing heavy weapons.
 |
| Statements including "irrespective of provocation, the Army must show tolerance" make excellent reading, but avoid the reality on the ground. |
Pakistan openly advocates employment of air power, helicopter gunships and artillery on its western territory. Heavy weapons are area weapons, which always cause collateral damage and enhance civilian casualties.
Avoiding employment of heavy vehicles indicates concern for the locals, whom the Army considers its own. Simultaneously, the Army continues to provide succour, relief and facilities, including medical aid and education to the population, especially in remote areas.
In encounters, it is invariably a kill or die situation. The militant is armed to the teeth, mentally brainwashed, seeking death, hence is desperate to kill the maximum security personnel, before he is eliminated.
Without heavy weapons, encounters are prolonged and become a battle of wits. One error and the forces' own soldiers are lost, which no commander of men desires. Locals coming in to interrupt such operations place the lives of soldiers at risk. Hence, on many occasions, the Army or other security forces accompanying them are compelled to open fire to safeguard the forces and enable elimination of militants.
That stones hurt is a fact. Security personnel deployed to restore peace and calm are there to break up mobs seeking to challenge the writ of the state. They are not there to get injured by stone-throwers, who refuse to listen or move when requested.
Initially all incidents are retaliated with by traditional means - employing "lathis" or other non-lethal weapons. It is only when the mass of agitators is large and casualties are mounting on security forces that they retaliate by lethal means.
The jeep incident was a one-off incident. The quick reaction team (QRT) was tasked to rescue a group of security personnel who were trapped inside a polling booth, fearing for their lives. The trapped personnel would have ultimately opened fire in self-defence, killing or injuring many protesters.
Likewise, the QRT would have had to break through this group of locals which had surrounded the booth, possibly incited by local Hurriyat or Jamat-e-Islami leaders, only by opening fire. The officer reacted by adopting an alternate measure, which though being criticised saved security personnel as also local lives.
The fact is that the trapped security forces did not fire on the surrounding mob as timely helped arrived, nor did the officer fire on locals to force a way in. Had either of the two happened, there would have been immense bloodshed, which would have haunted the Valley for years. This was avoided, employing ingenuity.
There are two factors which the reader must understand to comprehend why supporting security forces is important, while ignoring any comments from arm chair journalists, strategists and those removed far from the conflict zone.
Firstly, operations in such an environment involve split second decisions. Delay in decision-making can cost lives of comrades or locals. There is no time to think, but to just bank on gut instinct, especially when faced with disrupting mobs on one side and a trapped militant firing from another.
Even in the jeep-tying incident, the officer responded to his gut feeling, as any delay could have been disastrous for both sides.
Secondly, and equally important is that a soldier operating in trying circumstances is not there as a mercenary, but represents the nation and risks his life, day in and day out. He too is a father, husband and son and loves his family as much as we do.
He encounters anti-Army forces involving innumerable human rights groups, the media recording every activity, complaints and blames flying in every direction against his organisation, almost daily. Pressure also flows from the top as the Army hierarchy insists operations be conducted as per norms, with minimum collateral damage and casualties.
He is doing his duty, the only difference being that he loves and cherishes his nation. The pressure he works under at times results in over-reaction when he witnesses anti-national slogans and abuses. He may be excessive, but then he is not a superman, nor is he a saint, he is as simple an Indian as you or me - he is one of us.
Hence, rather than just criticising him, we need to understand his circumstances and provide him succour, rather than brickbats. It is easy to blame him, but for once, let us understand him and his situation.