Every individual is innocent till proven guilty.
As we grow older, we become more fixated in our views. Despite all criticism, we seek to defend ourselves, even against rational thoughts and use every means to justify our beliefs. This is the background behind the latest article titled ‘A history of transgressions’ published in the Newslaundry this week by respected veteran, Lieutenant General HS Panag. The article is based on an earlier incident involving Major Gogoi and his recent saga in Srinagar.
Immediately after the incident of a civilian being tied to an army jeep in April last year, General Panag, possibly the only veteran against Major Leetul Gogoi then, had tweeted, “The image of an alleged stone pelter, tied in front of a vehicle as a human shield, will forever haunt the Indian army and the nation.”
It goes to his credit that he stuck to his views despite all criticism.
It is to prove that the junior officer in question has a negative streak that the latest article has been written.
The article traces both the incidents which have highlighted the career of Major Gogoi. The first was the tying incident and the second of his presence in Srinagar. General Panag’s assessment of Major Gogoi is based on his belief that what was done in the Valley earlier was wrong and should have been dealt with differently.
What irked him more was that Major Gogoi was commended by the army chief for his ‘out of the box’ approach in which, without firing a single round, in trying circumstances, he saved multiple lives. To justify his interpretation, Gen Panag has levelled multiple charges against the officer in the latest article, without even awaiting a verdict of ‘guilty or not guilty’ from the army inquiry.
Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea
In fact, there are three incidents which have occurred in the Valley in the recent past, which need to be assessed for their differences in approach and ramifications. The first is the well-established case of Major Gogoi, who tied Farouq Ahmed Dar to his jeep, thus rescuing a polling team, facing a mob of stone-pelters, without firing a shot.
The second is the case of a team of Garhwal Rifles, which were surrounded by a mob, who were pelting stones and almost lynched the JCO leading the team. The column had to open fire, leading to civilian casualties.
The third is the recent case of a CRPF gypsy, after the government had announced NICO (Non-initiation of Combat Operations), surrounded and attacked by protestors, which had no option but to flee or else open fire in self-defence, which would have led to civilian deaths as also their own. Had it not fled, it could have possibly been set on fire or its occupants dragged out and killed. While fleeing, it ran over a youth and injured two more.
In the first case, Gogoi was accused of violating human rights, as he did not fire. In the second case, an FIR was lodged against the army for opening fire, which was ultimately squashed by the Supreme Court. In the third case, an FIR has been lodged against the driver (for rash and negligent driving) and unknown stone pelters. The State Human Rights Commission has sought an explanation from the SSP of Srinagar on the incident, including the presence of the vehicle in the area.
Omar Abdullah also tweeted, ‘Earlier they tied people to the front of jeeps and paraded them, now they just drive their jeeps over them. Ceasefire means no guns, so use jeeps?’
Clearly, no matter what action security forces took, they were always blamed.
Maximum Risk, Minimum Gain
Gogoi was defended across the nation for his ingenuity, while the Garhwal unit was supported for its controlled firing. The recent Gypsy case has been most visible on social media and portrays the trauma being faced by those within. In every case, those involved acted in the best manner they could given the circumstances. They had seconds to act or there would have been a high number of fatal casualties.
In the case of the Garhwal battalion, outnumbered army men would have been lynched, whereas in the case of others, local youth would have been killed in firing as also some security forces. Hence, in every case there was massive national support, despite a few dissenting voices.
Let There Be A Trial First
Moving to the present instance, where Major Gogoi was investigated for his presence in a hotel in Srinagar along with a lady. The investigation by the police has rightly concluded that there was nothing amiss, legally everything was in order and there was no reason for him to be detained. Hence, he was reverted to his unit.
The Chief, during his visit to the valley recently, was questioned on the incident. He stated that the army would investigate and if Gogoi was found guilty, he would be appropriately punished. This itself implies that army authorities are aware and capable of deciding what were the reasons for the officer to be present, sanctions, if any, were taken and the impact of his actions.
The responsibility for investigating rests with his superiors who are capable and knowledgeable.
Panag’s desire is to prove to the world that an individual, who, in his opinion, had earlier committed a crime, but was commended for it, would again do something wrong. For him, proving Gogoi guilty would be a blessing after facing public wrath on his earlier comments. In this article he has declared Gogoi guilty under multiple accounts of army law. He has even asked the army chief to consult his legal advisor on the subject.
A basic rule in law states than an individual is innocent unless proved guilty. The same rule would also apply to Gogoi, disregarding the fact whether he is a national figure or a criminal.
Judging the rules under which he is to be charged and seeking to declare him a criminal even before the army inquiry is complete, is akin to a media trial, which is incorrect. In case Gogoi is proved not guilty, will General Panag apologise for this media trial?
Major Gogoi to face Court of Inquiry
(The author is a retired army officer based in Lucknow. He can be reached @kakar_harsha. This is a personal blog and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)