In the case of the two teenage boys who were gunned down by an Army patrol at Chattergram in the Budgam district of central Kashmir on November 3, the military has already pleaded guilty. Usually, the forces usually try to deflect. So, presumably, this is an open and shut case.
The Northern Army commander, Lt. Gen. D.S. Hooda, told journalists in Srinagar on Friday, “I admit a mistake happened. Why else would two civilian boys have been killed like this? We share the sorrow of the families.” This is a rare admission of guilt from the highest level. If an inquiry is still being held, and the top boss of the Northern Command indicated this should be over in 10 days, it must be to fix specific responsibility. It must not be lost sight of that the circumstances of the case are not in doubt. That makes it hard to resile from the charge of murder. Were there any mitigating circumstances? An inquiry by the Army will no doubt try to work in that direction. Lt. Gen. Hooda has, of course, said the Army would also cooperate with any other inquiry, including one by the police. This is a good sign. The Northern Army commander is being commendably open. The logic of this is that there will be exemplary punishment, and no ducking behind the compulsions of national security or hocus-pocus of any kind. If the opposite were to happen, the Army would lose face in Kashmir.
The culpability of men in uniform in several past situations to do with innocent civilians — Pathribal is a notable reminder — did not redound to the Army’s credit in the valley. And yet the force has not been regarded as a triggerhappy institution. But this reputation dims from time to time and people’s anger mounts against military excesses, even if these are not part of the calculation. Hostile political elements are the first to take advantage. Acts of terrorism are then sought to be justified in the public mind as fair revenge. The only way out of such a spiral is for the Army to act fast, act with the aim of being just, and act hard against its men in the case of the smallest transgression. Zero tolerance is what’s called for — in every situation. Those passionate about the scrapping of AFSPA cite instances like these. If there was no AFSPA, the Army would not dare act with seeming impunity, they argue. It’s a beguiling argument. But no Army can operate without legal cover in a civilian environment in which terrorists are active, just as the police can’t open fire without a magistrate’s orders. In the latter case, too, there are excesses. The point is to not tolerate them.
