In a recent article in The Wire, Partha Chaterjee had
referred to the use of human shield in Kashmir, and its justification by the
military and political establishment as Kashmir’s General Dyer moment. Vivek
Katju has launched a spirited counter-attack to this claim of Partha Chaterjee.
Katju states that, “It is one matter for an army to handle the breakdown of law and order
for a short period as the colonial army of which Dyer was a part was asked to
do; it is an entirely different proposition when an army has to combat a
vicious and long war against terrorism. The latter, too, requires that an army
adheres to norms even while it innovates, but the fact of the toll that
fighting such terrorism exacts from an army and for that matter other
instruments of the state cannot be overlooked. It is to the Indian army’s
credit that its commitment to lawful means has never been diluted.”
He further argues, “Rawat’s comments on the Gogoi case reflect the anguish of a chief
whose soldiers have faced, and have done so for years, terrorism, and for
months now stone pelting mobs who pose a danger to their lives. Is it fair to
believe that soldiers caught up in such situations should not take steps to
defend themselves? Surely that is not a sustainable position by any criterion.”
Though Partha Chaterjee has responded, restated and justified his
position, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight just one simple
fact, which is that when it comes to the Kashmir issue and any response to the
same, I think we should all shy away from oversimplifying the debates and offering
simplistic solutions. Not doubting even for a moment Shri Katju’s expertise on
Kashmir, it would be a great help if he could graciously define lawful and
unlawful for us. It would also be very enlightening if he could give his views
on the nature of these ‘stone pelting mobs’. He has made the entire analysis of
Kashmir’s problems a tad too simple I believe. The proposition, according to
him, is very simple. It is a black and white case of Indian army having to
fight decades of Pakistani sponsored terrorism in Kashmir. The lawful, legal,
righteous Indian army and the Indian state trying to fend off the unlawful
Pakistani terrorists in the valley. The entire issue, if it was so simple,
would have ceased to have existed till now. Seven decades after independence,
the Kashmir issue still eludes any workable solution and the people of Kashmir
continue to suffer their fate. This, I believe, is the key thread that needs to
be held on to tightly if any resolution of this issue is to be even conceived
of. And this is the thread that does-not find even a bare minimum cognisance in
the mind of Vivek Katju. The ‘stone-pelting mobs’ mentioned by Shri Katju as
posing a threat to the lives of the fully armed personnel of the India army,
are actually the ordinary citizens of Kashmir, and legitimate Indian citizens.
They are normal civilians who want a decent life of dignity for themselves. I
am sure Shri Katju is not suggesting that pelting stones in order to be
lathi-charged, or hit by pellet guns, or even fatally wounded, is a favourite
pastime of these people.
Whereas, the Indian army is definitely in an unenviable position having
to manage insurgencies, which in ordinary situations, it is not trained for,
because it is not their mandate, however, the extra-ordinary situation in
Kashmir, since decades, has mandated them to perform this role. However, in
carrying out that responsibility, basic human rights of civilians cannot be
discounted for. The whole idea of using human shields for self-defence, rather
than finding favour with the civilian as well as military top brass, should
have been treated as one of misjudgement and an aberration not to be repeated
again. However, unfortunately, it has taken different proportions altogether.
If the army personnel are victims of the political process, much more are the
ordinary civilians of Kashmir, who for generations altogether, have been part
of a world that is unable to provide those basic minimum standards of a
dignified human life. Using these very people, who are themselves victims of
the situation, as instruments for self-protection, in whatsoever scenario,
cannot be justified.
The Kashmiris will not be able to consider themselves as inalienable
parts of India, if they are not meted out the treatment that every Indian citizen
deserves. Forcing them to compromise on their basic human rights and then
justifying the same is definitely not a step forward towards winning their
confidence and trying to normalize the situation.
