As Major Gogoi continues to face flak for his actions, the question that arises is whether he is really the monster that everyone is portraying him to be. If you critically analyse the situation under which he was forced to resort to this move, we will find that hundreds of lives were saved that day. He could have fired at the crowd or he could have mowed the stone-pelters down with a jeep. Instead, he chose a relatively non-violent way of dealing with the situation. The innocence of the man whose human rights were allegedly violated has still not been established. We also need to think about our defence personnel who are fighting for the stability of Kashmir.
Udayan Singh,
New Delhi
It is clear that there are quite a few who are “pacifists”, unable to take in the reality of what it takes to battle a Pakistan backed militancy and face violent fundamentalists who are out to sabotage any attempts to let democracy prevail in Kashmir. Why is a major who was rewarded for his risky effort in trying to restore peace and normalcy in such a dangerous environment coming under fire? Numerous civilians would have been besieged by a violent mob but for the major’s deterrent move. It was non-violent.
J.K. Achuthan,
Thiruvananthapuram
It is quite wrong for some sections of the media to overreact and criticise the felicitation of the major. While using someone as a human shield cannot be justified, one must also take into account the circumstances in which it was done. I think the major did not have much of a choice and did what he deemed best in the situation. It prevented the situation from worsening. To think that it would now become a trend as far as the Army handles its operations in sensitive areas is concerned is to stretch the imagination. I wonder why the commendation is being turned into a condemnation.
Vijai Pant,
Hempur, Uttarakhand
The point is that a human shield was not used in a combat zone; there was no war on; it was more of a rescue mission, one in which the officer concerned responded to a SOS. One needs to understand the circumstances under which the act was done as also its intent, both of which the media has chosen to ignore. The narrative is now one of twisted out of context and about a human rights violation. If the Major had not done what he did, there would have been a small article in this newspaper — quickly forgotten — on how a mob lynched some Election Commission officials and the security personnel at a booth. It would have been passed off as a one-off incident. This is what the officer prevented. He saved lives without a bullet being fired or using any crowd control methods such as pellet guns. It is this that needs to be appreciated. I am sure that those who talk about human rights violation would also sternly disapprove the lynching of electoral officials had the Major not done what he did.
Sanjay P.,
Hyderabad
Those who criticise the Army’s act in “recognising” the Major have little knowledge or appreciation of the role of the Army in general and that of the major in this particular mission. Management of a law and order situation is not the role of the army — it is that of civilian security forces. The Army gets called in in abnormal situations, when matters go beyond the control of civilian authorities. This was one such instance. The major objective was to save a number of civilians and some defence personnel. He achieved his objective without firing a single shot at a hostile crowd which was armed with stones and other weapons. He achieved his objective without a single death, either to his own forces or to civilians. Is this action not commendable?
Let us face the truth of the situation squarely in its face. Kashmir is a State where large sections of its population have secessionist tendencies, ably aided and abetted by Pakistan. The Army is doing a very difficult job as those who oppose them are civilians. They are in effect doing their jobs with one hand tied. It must be noted that an overwhelming number of Indians support the Army and appreciate their sacrifices.
Ravindra Ramarao,
Bengaluru
I firmly believe the there was an error of judgment in “rewarding” the Major. The Army needs to review its methods in the Kashmir Valley. Many would want the government to adopt Israeli-style tactics but they should understand that Kashmiris are Indians first. We cannot treat them as Israel does to Palestinians.
Rajoli Siddharth,
Sittwe, Rakhine, Myanmar
