SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/an-army-for-the-people/397454.html
PART ONE OF TWO PARTS
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/05/an-army-for-people-m-g-devasahayam.html
PART TWO:
***************************************************************
DONT TAKE INDIAN ARMED FORCES FOR GRANTED. ARMED FORCES ARE THE CUSTODIAN OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
&
LOYALTY OF ARMY IS GUARANTEED AS LONG AS THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS RESPECTED AND INTEGRITY OF THE NATION IS ENSURED - VASUNDHRA
Powerless?Farooq Dar tied to the Army vehicle as a human shield. Former Chief Omar Abdullah took to Twitter to display his anguish and attached the video screenshot of Dar.
Army’s healing touch:The Army was the saviour for people devastated by the floods. Army doctors provide medicines to the flood-hit people at a medical camp in Srinagar. PTI
L’affaire Human Shield’ of the Indian Army tying a stone-thrower on their jeep in Kashmir has evoked mixed reactions. Many, including Army veterans, are defending it as a tactical means to avoid stone-throwing and thus permit operations with minimal bloodshed of protestors and Army personnel alike. Many others condemn it vehemently.
Among the latter are those who call it part of "D doctrine" that draws its inspiration and ideology from the state of Israel. While this can be the Standard Operating Procedure for the Israeli Occupation Force in illegal occupation of Palestine, it cannot be an SOP in the Indian Army or any other self-respecting military.
For the moderate objectors, the Army personnel who used the tactic are clearly at the end of their tether in being deployed in internal security operations with no end in sight. They feel soldiers on-the-ground would not have used the tactic had they not been frustrated with having to take the blame for failures and the bullets and grenades from militants over the decades, for pulling politicians' chestnuts out of the fire, a job that the police are not quite up to.
Those who defend the "human shield" quote paragraph 305 of the "Regulations for the Army" for deployment of troops on duties in aid of civil authorities: "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."
Paragraph 306 (d) provides immunity to officers if they act in good faith which is held to mean "with due care and attention". For them, the young commander in Budgam faced with a hostile crowd of over 900 and the option of opening fire undoubtedly acted in good faith, exercising due care and attention, thereby averting a potential catastrophe.
Both sides have merits in their argument. But the problem is with the common denominator-the prolonged and endless deployment of the Army in internal security duty which is the job of the police and at best of the para-military forces for a short period. As per the Army Doctrine-2004, the Indian Army's primary role is to preserve national interests and safeguard the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of India against any external threats by deterrence or by waging war. To perform this role, the Army keeps aloof from the civilian crowd, concentrating on their training and battle readiness.
Relegating the Army to its secondary/tertiary role by prolonged troop deployment on internal security duties, dilutes the Army's authority, corrupts ranks and compromises efficiency through lack of training.
Besides, over time the Army is looked upon merely as another state force with its soldiers losing the respect and mystique they traditionally enjoyed. Familiarity breeds contempt and military men find themselves at the receiving end. This is precisely what is happening in Kashmir. Since the civilian population is directly involved, politics and politicians come in. Power games begin and wittingly or unwittingly the Army becomes a pawn.
In the case of Kashmir, the endeavour of power-mongers has been to create a situation of intense hostility, inextricably miring the military into it forcing it to resort to excessive force. To perform this "task," the Army is vested with draconian powers under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). In a July 2016 verdict, the Supreme Court ripped open the cloak of immunity and secrecy provided by AFSPA to security forces for deaths caused during encounters in disturbed areas.
Earlier, Commissions headed by former apex court judges have found serious human rights violations by the security forces and have recommended the scrapping of AFSPA or making drastic changes in it.
Successive governments and the Army top brass have been defending AFPSA with all their might. Over the years, the effort of ruling politicians has been to make the Army an instrument of an increasingly autocratic state. The question arises: What is the mandate of the Indian Army — to defend democracy or oppress the people at the whim of an autocratic state? This poser came up when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in June, 1975 turning a vibrant democracy into enslaved autocracy. Putting the entire blame on Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) and the movement led by him she made specific reference to JP calling upon the Army not to obey any order, which they considered wrong: "You have not sold your conscience and honour for the sake of your bread", JP had said and challenged the Home Minister to try him for treason. Response to the poser came from the international media in a lengthy article titled “Ruler of 600 million arid alone”-Indira Gandhi is unmaking a democracy to save it," in the New York Times of August 10, 1975 — written by Claire Sterling, [http://www.nytimes.com/1975/08/10/archives/ruler-of-600-million-and-alone-indira-gandhi-is-unmaking-a.html?_r=0 ] a columnist for Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post and International Herald Tribune after extensively visiting India. After analysing the situation on the ground and presenting the alternatives before Mrs Gandhi — becoming a real dictator or sending the country into the Soviet orbit — Claire opines that neither development is likely to leave the Indian Army unmoved:
[ ]
“India's standing Army of nearly a million men has been resolutely non-political since Independence. But it is also sensitive to the smallest slight to its honour, dignity and military independence, not to mention the nation's sovereignty; and it is steeped in loyalty to constitutional principles. It was altogether her Army when she enjoyed unquestioned legitimacy of constitutional rule. It may not be should its ranking officers conclude that she has become something else. More than ever now her fate hangs on the Army's loyalty.”
Claire concludes the article with touching poignancy: "One thing worse than governing India by democratic persuasion would be trying to govern it by force. Yet that is how Indira is trying to do it now. Depending on how fast and how far she goes in changing from a traditional Prime Minister to the one-woman ruler of a police state, the Indian Army, the one group with the power to stop the process, could intervene. If it were to do so, it would almost certainly be not to replace her with a military dictator, but to restore the institutions of democracy it has been drilled into defending since birth." The Army lived up to this faith and Emergency ended with Indira Gandhi's defeat in the 1977 elections. The Army did not intervene but remained a bulwark of India's democracy and its institutions. I was a witness. Should our Army be any different now?
The writer is a former IAS officer
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/an-army-for-the-people/397454.html
PART ONE OF TWO PARTS
PART ONE :
[A]
PART TWO:
[ B ]
http://bcvasundhra.blogspot.in/2017/04/no-doubt-army-for-people.html***************************************************************
DONT TAKE INDIAN ARMED FORCES FOR GRANTED. ARMED FORCES ARE THE CUSTODIAN OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
&
LOYALTY OF ARMY IS GUARANTEED AS LONG AS THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS RESPECTED AND INTEGRITY OF THE NATION IS ENSURED - VASUNDHRA
Powerless?Farooq Dar tied to the Army vehicle as a human shield. Former Chief Omar Abdullah took to Twitter to display his anguish and attached the video screenshot of Dar.
An Army for the People?
BY
M. G. Devasahayam
L’affaire Human Shield’ of the Indian Army tying a stone-thrower on their jeep in Kashmir has evoked mixed reactions. Many, including Army veterans, are defending it as a tactical means to avoid stone-throwing and thus permit operations with minimal bloodshed of protestors and Army personnel alike. Many others condemn it vehemently.
Paragraph 306 (d) provides immunity to officers if they act in good faith which is held to mean "with due care and attention". For them, the young commander in Budgam faced with a hostile crowd of over 900 and the option of opening fire undoubtedly acted in good faith, exercising due care and attention, thereby averting a potential catastrophe.
Relegating the Army to its secondary/tertiary role by prolonged troop deployment on internal security duties, dilutes the Army's authority, corrupts ranks and compromises efficiency through lack of training.
Besides, over time the Army is looked upon merely as another state force with its soldiers losing the respect and mystique they traditionally enjoyed. Familiarity breeds contempt and military men find themselves at the receiving end. This is precisely what is happening in Kashmir. Since the civilian population is directly involved, politics and politicians come in. Power games begin and wittingly or unwittingly the Army becomes a pawn.
In the case of Kashmir, the endeavour of power-mongers has been to create a situation of intense hostility, inextricably miring the military into it forcing it to resort to excessive force. To perform this "task," the Army is vested with draconian powers under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). In a July 2016 verdict, the Supreme Court ripped open the cloak of immunity and secrecy provided by AFSPA to security forces for deaths caused during encounters in disturbed areas.
Earlier, Commissions headed by former apex court judges have found serious human rights violations by the security forces and have recommended the scrapping of AFSPA or making drastic changes in it.
Successive governments and the Army top brass have been defending AFPSA with all their might. Over the years, the effort of ruling politicians has been to make the Army an instrument of an increasingly autocratic state. The question arises: What is the mandate of the Indian Army — to defend democracy or oppress the people at the whim of an autocratic state? This poser came up when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency in June, 1975 turning a vibrant democracy into enslaved autocracy. Putting the entire blame on Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) and the movement led by him she made specific reference to JP calling upon the Army not to obey any order, which they considered wrong: "You have not sold your conscience and honour for the sake of your bread", JP had said and challenged the Home Minister to try him for treason. Response to the poser came from the international media in a lengthy article titled “Ruler of 600 million arid alone”-Indira Gandhi is unmaking a democracy to save it," in the New York Times of August 10, 1975 — written by Claire Sterling, [http://www.nytimes.com/1975/08/10/archives/ruler-of-600-million-and-alone-indira-gandhi-is-unmaking-a.html?_r=0 ] a columnist for Atlantic Monthly, Washington Post and International Herald Tribune after extensively visiting India. After analysing the situation on the ground and presenting the alternatives before Mrs Gandhi — becoming a real dictator or sending the country into the Soviet orbit — Claire opines that neither development is likely to leave the Indian Army unmoved:
[ ]
“India's standing Army of nearly a million men has been resolutely non-political since Independence. But it is also sensitive to the smallest slight to its honour, dignity and military independence, not to mention the nation's sovereignty; and it is steeped in loyalty to constitutional principles. It was altogether her Army when she enjoyed unquestioned legitimacy of constitutional rule. It may not be should its ranking officers conclude that she has become something else. More than ever now her fate hangs on the Army's loyalty.”
No comments:
Post a Comment