The commendation: On award to Major Leetul Gogoi

The Army commending a soldier still under probe for use of a human shield is unfortunate

May 25, 2017 12:02 am | Updated 12:02 am IST

There are two issues that are pertinent about the commendation awarded to Major Leetul Gogoi of the Army’s 53 Rashtriya Rifles. The first relates to the timing — it was conferred on him by Army chief General Bipin Rawat before a Court of Inquiry has concluded its probe into his role in the use of a human shield during the Srinagar Lok Sabha election on April 9. Without casting any doubt whatsoever about Major Gogoi’s “sustained efforts in counter-insurgency operations”, it is impossible but to conclude that the timing of the award sends a truly unfortunate message, one that risks a loss of public confidence in the Court of Inquiry, ordered by the Army itself. Since the Major was being probed for a possible transgression in an area plagued by insurgency, wouldn’t the commendation be regarded as a tacit approval of his action? The second issue relates to the circumstances in which Major Gogoi resorted to the use of a human shield, something that he admitted to doing a day after news of the commendation broke. Many of the specifics relating to this are irrelevant insofar as they do not constitute a justification for tying someone to the bonnet of a jeep and driving him through the street as a deterrent to stone-pelting. For instance, the discussion on whether Farooq Ahmad Dar was instigating a group to throw stones (as Major Gogoi states) or whether he was merely a bystander who was out to exercise his franchise (as Mr. Dar says) cannot cloud the larger issue — the impropriety of the Indian Army using someone as a human shield.

The Indian Army prides itself on a long and honourable tradition in guarding the Republic; indeed, it operates in places such as Kashmir in extremely trying circumstances that risk life and limb. But surely it must accept that the rules of conduct for men in uniform must be adhered to, despite the difficulties in doing so in the conduct of what is clearly an asymmetric engagement. If the use of human shields has been declared a war crime by the Geneva Conventions and opposed for the same reason in both “international and non-international conflicts” by organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, it is because such acts put people at risk and constitute a gross human rights violation. It is no accident that the use of such shields has been perfected by terrorist organisations, ranging from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to the Islamic State. It could be argued that in the fog of operations, some improvisation in standard operating procedures is inevitable. But the use of a human shield, in this instance of a civilian, can hardly be justified on this ground, because it militates against the basic principles that govern the rules of conduct in war and war-like situations. It would have been proper if this incident was met with stern disapproval rather than being exploited, as it has been in some hyper-nationalistic quarters, to reinforce an us-versus-them binary and pit the security forces against the Kashmiri street.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.