Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh has repeatedly voiced his concern over the vulnerability of the Indian soldiers at the line of duty, especially when faced with dangerous situations.
From asking for a “free hand” for the Army when exposed to risks, to defending Major Nitin Gogoi, who has faced flak for allegedly using a Kashmiri man in Budgam as a human shield against stone-pelters by tying him to an Army vehicle, Amarinder has come out in solidarity.
In a column for The Indian Express, Singh again reiterates his stance on the human shield incident saying “dangerous situations often, if not always, merit daring actions”.
Contrarian or not, my opinion on the Major Gogoi episode is clearly and unequivocally in favour of the officer, who only did what was absolutely correct, and possibly the only sane and logical course of action available to him, in the circumstances.Amarinder Singh in The Indian Express
While the accused Major remains embroiled in a probe by the Court of Inquiry, Singh demands “a distinguished services medal for the daring officer”.
Does an army officer not deserve a reward for saving lives? Or is it the destiny of all army personnel to sacrifice their lives, if not to the enemy at the border, then at the hands of the very civilians they are designated to protect?
Condemning the killing of Lieutenant Ummer Fayaz earlier this month after he was abducted by militants from a relative’s wedding, Singh asks, “Who can remain unaffected and unprovoked by the sight of the badly mutilated body of a jawan?”
He goes on to write that the armed forces be freed of the “gentleman” tag so that it can tackle “barbarism and brutality” with an “iron fist”.
Taking on issues both within and outside the border, Singh again stressed on taking “tough decisions” as “the road to peace is never easy”.
Response to the ‘Human Shield’ on The Quint
The human shield incident sparked debates all across with criticism coming in for the practice that also questions human rights. Writing for The Quint, Lt General HS Panag (Retd.) said:
At the moment, the dividing line between terrorists and the general public in Kashmir has become blurred. After mass protests and stone-throwing incidents, there’s a general feeling among the Indian public that they are the same... Consequently, everyone becomes the enemy. How can we fight an insurgency like this?
Dabiru Sridhar Patnaik, Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School, wrote:
The principle of proportionality imposes restraints on parties in a conflict from launching attacks that would harm civilians. But voluntary shielding poses a challenge to this principle in practice... The international law on condemning human shields is clear, the situation in India warrants the need to consider domestic use of human shields as illegal.
The army exhibited what usually militarily weaker insurgents in conflict conditions do: Weaker parties in a violent conflict often embrace shielding as a method designed to counter or prevent attacks against which they cannot effectively defend using weaponry normally at the disposal of the more organised state security forces.Chandan Nandy for The Quint
Support and criticism poured in on social media for the Punjab Chief Minister’s stand. While some accused him of being “ignorant” of the Geneva Convention, others congratulated him on his “clear stand” and “support” for the Indian Army.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)