WHO HAS FAILED THE SOLDIERS?
The Supreme Court's verdict on the petition of 700 odd soldiers and officers was out on 30th Nov. They had petitioned that they be protected from prosecution by law in case of collateral deaths in disturbed areas where they are deployed in counter insurgency operations. If you are dealing with an opponent who is wielding the gun and fires at you, or has an intention of firing it with an intention to kill, there is no option left with a soldier expect to fire back to protect his life.
The Insurgency is never a clean operation, where the battle lines are neatly defined and drawn. It is always a very wooly kind of situation, where the local civil population gets involved with the insurgents, protects them and even gives shelter to them so that they are able to merge with the public at large. The soldier is in a CATCH 22 situation. He can play safe and let the insurgent escape even though he may be in his killing range or else be true to his duty in killing him, even though the second option carries the risk of collateral damage to some members of local population.
The Soldier's reaction to fire in the face of enemy(insurgent) is his natural reaction. That's his duty and that is how he has been trained. He is not the local police who merges with the local population to perform his duties. He has been brought from other parts of India, does't speak local dialect, is generally ignorant of their customs and can always be spotted as an outsider. This makes him extremely vulnerable to his opponent's bullets.By nature an Indian soldier is very humane (except in war in the face of an enemy), morally responsible, educated and follows the orders to the last letter. Therefore, to brand him as a wilful killer is not only preposterous but downright demeaning to his conscience of justice and fair play.
Why the soldier, when employed in counter insurgency operations, is in such a Catch 22 situation. It is simply because, inspite of being the strongest, the other vital links in the chain are weak. He is always tethered to his immediate command as well as to his higher Command. The first crack is at the higher Command level, where soldiers are put in situations with inadequate wherewithal and support to the tasks that he is assigned to do. Collateral damage is bound to occur in such operations inspite of the best efforts. The protection that should be provided to him by way of " protection from prosecution by law" if collateral damage takes place, is unfortunately not in place. The noise from Human Right protectionists muddles the issues and any death is made to look as if it was wilful.
At its heart, all insurgency driven unrest is a POLITICAL issue, where a group or population at large feels a sense of injustice, deprivation or alienation. The prime responsibility to address these issues is that of the Govt of the day. If they fail to resolve issues, they set in motion the wheels of Catch 22 situation. The Military command to whom the task is entrusted to control the insurgents, unfortunately don't insist on adequate and foolproof safeguards for their men, leading to situations that now exist in many parts of the country. In spite of what SC says, the soldiers are only doing their assigned duties and barring one or two rogue elements, all of them are very patriotic, fair and just.The onus, therefore, falls on the Govts of the day or the higher Command and not the soldiers who are the last link in the chain.
If this issue is not properly addressed by the Govt or the higher Command at the earliest, there is a danger of fracture at the last link of the chain
Yogi Nayar
The Supreme Court's verdict on the petition of 700 odd soldiers and officers was out on 30th Nov. They had petitioned that they be protected from prosecution by law in case of collateral deaths in disturbed areas where they are deployed in counter insurgency operations. If you are dealing with an opponent who is wielding the gun and fires at you, or has an intention of firing it with an intention to kill, there is no option left with a soldier expect to fire back to protect his life.
The Insurgency is never a clean operation, where the battle lines are neatly defined and drawn. It is always a very wooly kind of situation, where the local civil population gets involved with the insurgents, protects them and even gives shelter to them so that they are able to merge with the public at large. The soldier is in a CATCH 22 situation. He can play safe and let the insurgent escape even though he may be in his killing range or else be true to his duty in killing him, even though the second option carries the risk of collateral damage to some members of local population.
The Soldier's reaction to fire in the face of enemy(insurgent) is his natural reaction. That's his duty and that is how he has been trained. He is not the local police who merges with the local population to perform his duties. He has been brought from other parts of India, does't speak local dialect, is generally ignorant of their customs and can always be spotted as an outsider. This makes him extremely vulnerable to his opponent's bullets.By nature an Indian soldier is very humane (except in war in the face of an enemy), morally responsible, educated and follows the orders to the last letter. Therefore, to brand him as a wilful killer is not only preposterous but downright demeaning to his conscience of justice and fair play.
Why the soldier, when employed in counter insurgency operations, is in such a Catch 22 situation. It is simply because, inspite of being the strongest, the other vital links in the chain are weak. He is always tethered to his immediate command as well as to his higher Command. The first crack is at the higher Command level, where soldiers are put in situations with inadequate wherewithal and support to the tasks that he is assigned to do. Collateral damage is bound to occur in such operations inspite of the best efforts. The protection that should be provided to him by way of " protection from prosecution by law" if collateral damage takes place, is unfortunately not in place. The noise from Human Right protectionists muddles the issues and any death is made to look as if it was wilful.
At its heart, all insurgency driven unrest is a POLITICAL issue, where a group or population at large feels a sense of injustice, deprivation or alienation. The prime responsibility to address these issues is that of the Govt of the day. If they fail to resolve issues, they set in motion the wheels of Catch 22 situation. The Military command to whom the task is entrusted to control the insurgents, unfortunately don't insist on adequate and foolproof safeguards for their men, leading to situations that now exist in many parts of the country. In spite of what SC says, the soldiers are only doing their assigned duties and barring one or two rogue elements, all of them are very patriotic, fair and just.The onus, therefore, falls on the Govts of the day or the higher Command and not the soldiers who are the last link in the chain.
If this issue is not properly addressed by the Govt or the higher Command at the earliest, there is a danger of fracture at the last link of the chain
Yogi Nayar
No comments:
Post a Comment