‘Human Shield’: a devious accusation to vilify the soldiers
Major
General Mrinal Suman
Denigration of the security forces is a standard ploy of the
terrorist groups to gain moral ascendency. Concocted stories of custodial
murders and mass rapes are regularly planted to denigrate soldiers. Such ploys
serve two purposes. One, by showing soldiers as vicious and ruthless villains;
insurgents gain sympathy of the populace and attract more adherents to their
cause. Two, adverse publicity affects the morale of the soldiers adversely.
False accusations and apprehensions of subsequent inquisitions compound the
challenges.
However, it is the malafide criticism of a section of Indian political leadership
and media that hurts Indian soldiers the most. They are highly sensitive to
undue criticism. Their dedication to duty, loyalty to the nation and willingness
for the supreme sacrifice are driven less by material considerations and more
by an overwhelming urge to ensure national security. A grateful nation’s
recognition acts as the strongest motivator. When unfairly censured, they start
wondering as
to whose war they are fighting.
The recent video is another brazen attempt to discredit the
security forces. It relates to an incident in Budgam wherein an alleged leader
of stone-pelters was tied to a jeep to secure safe passage for the besieged
troops. As was to be expected, politicians of suspect national loyalties were
quick to condemn it as an inhumane act. Presstitutes went overboard faulting
the security forces for the use of ‘human shield’. Overnight, the term ‘human
shield’ acquired unprecedented notoriety.
What is a human shield? A shield is a piece of armour that helps intercept hostile attacks and allows the holder to
close in with the enemy to enable delivering of a counterstroke. Hence, a
shield is not a passive protection but acts as an offensive piece through
active blocks. In other words, shields help attack an enemy (ensuring own
safety). Boxers know it well. They use one fore-arm as a shield to parry
opponent’s jabs while attempting to close in for delivering the knock-out
punch.
The term human
shield denotes use of human beings as a shield. One of the earliest examples of
employing human shield appears in the epic Mahabharata. Hiding behind
Shikhandi, Arjun advanced towards Bhishm. Once within the range, he shots
arrows at him, secure in the knowledge that Shikhandi was an unbreachable
shield. As can be seen, Shikhandi was used for offensive purposes and not for
passive protection.
In the Budgam case,
Dar was not used to attack the mobs. That would have certainly been an
unsoldierly act. In this incident, the officer rightly appreciated that he
would have to open fire to prevent lynching of the trapped soldiers and the
policemen. They had been grossly outnumbered by a 900 strong mob baying for
their blood. That would have resulted in major casualties, thereby further
vitiating the already charged environment.
Using his initiative, the officer decided to use Dar as
protection – yes, ‘protection’ and not ‘shield’. He not only saved the lives of
his troops but also spared Kashmir of untold civilian casualties. Hostile mobs
go berserk and cannot be controlled by a few warning shots.
In late 1990s, a Border Roads vehicle was fired at by militants
in Doda area. Stoppage of road construction work was no solution. The local
company commander found an easy way out. He ordered that every vehicle would
carry 3-4 locally employed labourers, standing prominently in front. All
village heads were also informed. Villagers who had been giving shelter to
militants earlier were now opposing them, lest their own villagers got killed.
Thus, local labourers provided the necessary protection.
Critics must remember that terrorists have been regularly
employing school boys as human shields to attack the security forces. No
political leader or media personality has ever faulted them for human rights
violations. Some hypocrisy and duplicity!
A number of questions are being raised by the ignorant. Did the
officer act unlawfully? Is he guilty of human rights violations? Should he be
proceeded against for disciplinary action? The unequivocal answer to all the
questions is an emphatic NO. He deserves to be lauded for his quick thinking
and unorthodox approach. His conduct was as per the law and he was duty bound
to act the way he did. Let me explain.
Employment of troops on duties in aid of civil authorities is
governed by the ‘Regulations for the Army’, issued by the Government of India.
Paragraph 305 reads: “The strength and composition of the force,
the amount of ammunition to be taken and the manner of carrying out the task
are matters for the decision of the military authorities alone. It would be
borne in mind that the amount of force, both as regards the number of rounds
used as well as the damage done, should be the minimum required to disperse the
unlawful assembly or to perform the task indicated.”
It is unambiguously clear that it is entirely the prerogative of
the military authority to determine the manner of carrying out the assigned task.
However, he is counselled to use minimum force and to cause minimum damage.
Needless to say, the Budgam officer handled a difficult situation with
consummate skill and performed the task admirably. No rounds were fired and no
damage was caused to life and property. What more can the nation ask of a young
officer who is risking his life to keep India safe!
Further, Paragraph 306(d) of the ‘Regulations for the Army’
provides necessary immunity to the officer concerned. It states, “Officers
should also bear in mind that they are legally protected if they act in good
faith which is held to mean ‘with due care and attention’.” The Budgam officer
undoubtedly acted in good faith, exercising due care and attention, thereby
averting a potential catastrophe.
At no stage is it being advocated that the Indian military
should not be subjected to scrutiny. However, criticism should be balanced and
objective. According to some self-proclaimed chair-bound activists
anti-national crowds can throw stones at uniformed persons and maim them, but
return fire in self-defence is not acceptable.
Finally, it must be appreciated that the soldiers are not in
Kashmir by choice. They hate to be pitted against their own countrymen. Worse,
when soldiers get killed, no tears are shed but if insurgents get killed, human
right activists raise hell. Unsurprisingly, they wonder if the countrymen
understand their trials and tribulations.*****
