On the face of it, the Army’s case seems implausible in respect of the infamous Pathribal episode of March 2000, in which five innocent villagers in southern Kashmir were shot to death at point blank range, allegedly under a diabolical plan involving five of its personnel, four of them officers.
At the end of court-martial proceedings that lasted about two years, the Army blandly — and opaquely — said last week that there was no prima facie case against the accused. It also noted that the incident was a joint operation with the police. The implied suggestion is that those looking for the killers might search within the J&K police force.
From the perspective of the victims’ families, and the people in the Valley, it has taken 14 long years to reach a conclusion such as this. Justice, of course, is nowhere in sight. In a volatile context, pain and grief can turn into rebellion, at least at the psychological level, even if the populace can be physically kept down.
Indeed, it is worth pondering if the Army could have got away with the straight-faced explanation it has offered had Pathribal been located in India’s heartland. This is a question that Kashmiris quite appropriately ask. Also, the separatists have been gifted an opening when their zeal was flagging.
The Army’s case may have been on firmer footing if it had presented the reasons for its finding both to the public as well as the Supreme Court even if the manuals do not require this, given the sensitive nature of the affair. In the face of protests and grave disquiet in Kashmir over the unlawful killings, the Supreme Court had asked the Army to either submit itself to civilian jurisdiction in the matter or accept a court-martial.
This was on the back of the CBI finding enough grounds to chargesheet the five Army personnel in 2006. Kashmir had been buoyed by this show of impartiality. The Army, however, rejected the CBI’s action, saying that under the provisions of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the investigators should have obtained the Centre’s prior sanction to proceed against military personnel.
The Indian Army is a patriotic force with a well-deserved reputation for bravery and professionalism. But this formidable reputation suffers when its personnel become wayward and break the rules of fair conduct. When the Army as an institution condones the lawless behaviour of individuals in the force, its ability to operate in sensitive areas gets diminished. This is to the nation’s detriment. The AFSPA is not meant to give Army personnel a free ride, but to protect them from malafide legal action when they act lawfully in the line of duty.
via The Asian Age
0 comments :
Post a Comment