Use of human shields is now officially justified, says Omar

Army’s award to the officer—who tied a shawl-weaver to his jeep’s fender during Srinagar by-polls last month—has legitimised the use of human shields in Kashmir, former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah has said in a searing critique published in The Indian Express on Wednesday.

In the opinion piece titled: Why Major Gogoi is wrong, Omar argued that Kashmir stood more alienated than ever before and predicted that “consequences would be disastrous.”

“The officer has not only been exonerated in advance but also rewarded for an act that warranted penalisation and disciplinary action,” he wrote and wondered, “what court of inquiry will dare go against the implied will of the defence minister and the army chief?”

Quoting from Romans 12:21, ‘Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good’ he wrote that the test of the ‘idea of India’ lies in the ability of the state and its institutions to be good in Kashmir- regardless of the circumstances.

Contradicting the claims of Major Gogoi—who justified his act before media on Tuesday, saying that the civilian used as human sheild, Farooq Ahmed Dar was ring leader of stone-pelters—Omar argued that according to Dar and local reports, he cast his vote the same morning in an election that saw an unprecedentedly low turnout before he was strapped to the jeep.

Even though Major Gogoi justified his impromptu act, claiming that it saved many lives, Omar in his article said: “When Major Nitin Leetul Gogoi saw the operational ‘success of this manoeuvre’, he ordered for Dar to be tied to a jeep in his column of vehicles and paraded him through at least nine different villages — dehumanising him as a toy, exhibiting him as a ‘lesson’ for stone-pelters, as the blaring loudspeaker kept reminding locals.”

The all too familiar bandwagon of muscular, unquestionable, unaccountable nationalism condoned the assault on Dar’s dignity and praised Major Gogoi as a person with remarkable aplomb and alacrity, commending him for the ‘dynamic call’ he took ‘to save lives’, Omar lamented. And he went on to question if Dar’s rights — to liberty, dignity and constitutional remedy — was tossed out of the window for the “greater good” — as perceived by Major Gogoi?

Omar expressed serious disagreements over what Chief Minister of Punjab, Captain Amarinder Singh wrote in an article: I applaud Major Gogoi, wherein he had argued that “Tough situations warrant tough reactions, and dangerous situations often, if not always, merit daring actions.” Omar wondered, since when is our army allowed to subvert the fundamental rights of our citizens to save itself in extraordinary situations?

“The last time I checked, the army is duty-bound to protect the citizens of this country and their fundamental rights — not only its own men and certainly not at the cost of civilians and their rights, in any given situation, ideal or not. And Farooq Ahmed Dar — voter or not, ‘stone-pelter’ or not — was a citizen of India who should not have been used as a human shield, regardless of circumstances,” he further wrote.

Omar drew a parallel between the Kulbhushan Jadhav and Dhar’s case citing Geneva Convention and wondered, “Can we morally afford to mock the same convention in Kashmir, which clearly and unequivocally categorises the use of human shields as a “war crime”, no ifs or buts?”

Even though Omar acknowledged ‘innumerable and unimaginable sacrifices’ made by jawans in Kashmir, he argued that “the life of an Indian citizen — his right to dignity and the due process of law — is not a ‘dispensable’ matter either.”

“A subversion of fundamental rights and a violation of the Constitution of India, validated by no less an authority but the Union defence minister and the army chief, calls into question the very legitimacy of the government in Jammu and Kashmir, not to speak of its non-existent writ,” he regretted.

Mounting a scathing attack on Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti, he further wrote: “if she cannot ensure that her own alliance partner supports her on the basic premise of upholding the civil liberties of her people, her government loses the moral right to govern.”