Budgam: Breaking the myth of excessive force by security forces in Kashmir

The Kashmir Valley has witnessed a disturbing trend in the recent past with protests in the vicinity of ongoing encounter sites between security forces and terrorists, thereby interfering with the conduct of operations.

The extent of these intrusive and obstructionist actions reached a level, wherein, terrorists were able to make good their escape. The actions of these violent mobs have also led to injuries to security forces personnel and in some cases fatal casualties.

An encounter in Budgam district of Kashmir on March 28, 2017, saw the killing of a terrorist. It also witnessed mobs attempting to disrupt the operation by throwing stones at security forces, leading to injuries to over 60 personnel and three “protesters”, part of a violent mob.

These attempts have become a regular feature of operations in populated areas. As a result of one such operation, a warning was given by General Bipin Rawat, the Chief of Army Staff, against such obstructionist actions. However, this had little effect on the violent mobs, which have remained unfazed despite repeated warnings.

This raises certain questions regarding the actions of the mobs, the means available with security forces to stop them from interfering with operations and the justification for the same.

Foremost among the accusations one hears is the distinction made by security agencies between “protesters” in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. It needs to be clearly understood that a so-called protester who rushes the cordon of security forces in a bid to disrupt an ongoing military operation against a terrorist, often to the extent of causing death of soldiers, falls under the category of abetment of a crime, which in this case is a terrorist act.

There were many protesting voices when General Rawat warned of strict action against “overground workers” if they continued to disrupt lawful operations. There were attempts to construe this as treating “protesters” as terrorists, despite this not being either the context or content of the message given by the General.

Let me prove here that “protesters” who directly abet attempts at facilitating the escape of a terrorist or the death of security forces personnel can indeed be dealt with by lethal means at the disposal of security personnel, which is not only justified under Indian legal provisions but also UN mandated missions.

The first aspect that deserves clarity is the interplay between terrorists and “protesters”, who attempt to facilitate their escape or directly cause injury or death to security forces personnel. Section 107(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) explains abetment as, “When either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commissioning of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

This explanation clearly indicates that the actions being witnessed in Kashmir are abetment of a terrorist act, wherein, protesters attempt to break the cordon of security forces to facilitate the escape of a terrorist. Further, the actions are also linked with a terrorist act, which has been defined by the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 as amended in 2013.

Section 15 of the Act states: “[15. Terrorist act - (1) Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security [economic security] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, - (b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary… commits a terrorist act.”

The activities of terrorists are clearly in violation of the law in question. In fact, it could further be argued that stone throwing and violent mobs that attempt to facilitate the escape of terrorists and cause bodily harm to government functionaries also fall under the purview of this law.

Finally, it is relevant to draw a comparison of standard operating procedures adopted in Kashmir with those followed by UN peacekeeping forces. Security forces in Kashmir are required to employ an escalatory ladder in terms of employment of force. This implies that the least lethal option is employed first and it is thereafter followed by more lethal ones.

Second, they are further mandated to use minimum force proportionate to the challenge at hand. This is the reason that police and central police forces are seen employing lathi-charge, teargas, PAVA shells, water cannons, before even contemplating pellet guns and rifles. Third, due warning is given to the people in the language they understand prior to employing force.

This is a standard operating procedure. Besides the warning given by the forces employed in operations, the same has also been repeated by the CM and Chief of Army Staff. Fourth, firing as and when resorted to, should be controlled. This is clearly illustrated by the large number of security forces personnel who have themselves been injured despite grave provocation. Fifth, medical aid should be provided to the injured at the earliest.

Similar guidelines are in place in UN mandated peacekeeping missions like South Sudan. This includes the principle of minimum force and as a last resort, to open fire and employ deadly force. This is ideally done under orders of the on-scene commander unless circumstances do not permit the same under life threatening conditions.

The specific precautions while opening fire include: “a. Shots should be aimed and controlled. Indiscriminate fire is not permitted b. Take all feasible precautions to avoid, and in any event minimise, collateral damage. c. Fire no more shots than necessary.”

These comparative conditions clearly illustrate that missions mandated by UN Security Council operate under similar conditions as security forces in J&K. It is also evident that the use of lethal force against not merely violent mobs but those supporting terrorism and causing grievous injury to security forces, is the norm that is followed by security forces across the world, including UN missions. In fact, the restraint seen in Kashmir is rare to witness as will be borne by comparative casualty figures of UN peacekeepers employed under missions.

On the contrary, the incitement of children to repeatedly cross clearly laid down red lines, thereby pushing them into harm's way by separatist leaders and Pakistan, is a violation of the human rights of Kashmiri youth. This cannot be compared with the principle of peaceful protest, which is indeed the democratic right of every citizen in the country.

Therefore, the comparison of violent mobs in Kashmir with peaceful protests elsewhere in the country is a fallacious and mischievous attempt at obfuscating reality as it exists.

Also read: Avoiding another season of disasters in Kashmir