news details |
|
|
| Kupwara killing: Why did not Magray stop when asked by the Army? | | Army apology intriguing | |
NEHA
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Feb 7: The extra ordinary sensitivity and concern shown by the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir to the reported killing of 'an innocent youth' in North Kashmir can be only appreciated at the first look of the incident. Immediate intervention of the CM saved the situation from escalating; demonstrated the commitment of the present government in the state to the policy of "zero level tolerance of human rights violation by the security forces" operating in the hostile environment of the state in general and Kashmir Valley in particular; and gave a decisive signal to National Conference party structures in Handwara about the high value its leadership attaches to its cadres functioning in trouble-torn areas of the troubled and communally-charged Valley. But the entire approach has also reflected not only a political naivety but also a selective sensitivity that is likely to isolate Omar from his own administrative set-up, particularly the security establishment operating in extremely difficult circumstances.
How could the Chief Minister come to the conclusion in just an overnight about the "innocence" of the young man killed in the incident? The proclaimed innocence of the two ladies killed in Shopian had led to a lot of hot and intense debate as well as gossip amongst the people in Kashmir. The content of the discourse must be well-known to the Chief Minister himself, as he also controls the high profile and sensitive Home Portfolio. And, the media trial, which had convicted his own police officers working on ground for the alleged incident of rape and killing in Shopian, had created a very difficult situation even in the Court for the law to take its own course. But for the timely and brave intervention of the High Court judge the officers alleged to have been involved in the incident stood no chance to escape from being crucified. Shopian incident should have made the CM wiser enough. That it has not happened should raise many questions.
What was the young man, killed in the incident, doing in an area which is a known infiltration route during late hours? Why didn't he and his other colleague stop when the ambush Party asked them to do so? If there are trespassers in the sensitive areas from where infiltration of terrorists usually takes place, what fool proof mechanisms can be deployed by even the most sophisticated security establishment which has deployed ambush parties to prevent infiltration, when the trespassers refuse to pay heed to even the halt commands? Was this young man visiting this area almost daily and, if so, then Why? This needs to be looked into. It is imperative. Before coming to any conclusion, did the Chief Minister or his so-called advisors address these questions? If young men visit sensitive locations for carnal pleasures, ignore security instructions, what type of security dangers arise from such a situation? His advisors should know all this.
The parrot theme that immediate and disproportionate reaction of the highest in the government to incidents of alleged human rights violations by security forces helps in improvement of situation needs to be examined. The Chief Minister responded to the situation in Shopian with the same perspective as he has done now, but that only helped in bloating the incident into a full blown agitation. He even at that time painted himself as a person heading a government who had no confidence in his own security apparatus.
The attitude of the Army core commander to accept the 'mistake' in such a short period of time only reflects an attitude to be politically correct rather than operationally correct. If army itself says that its unit had followed the 'standard operational procedure' in an ambush area then the Core Commanders' assertion about the mistake seems only a political hara-kiri, which does not bode well for the army and the nation, victim of intrigues, political manipulations and political blackmail. Many security officers have already been saying, of course, in private that they are not only hand cuffed and leg cuffed in their anti-insurgency operations in the state but also 'brain cuffed'. The core commander has glaringly demonstrated this predicament. Why? It is for the Chief of the Army Staff to clarify and take the nation into confidence.
There is also a critical issue of selective sensitivity being shown by the Chief Minister from time to time. If he chose to visit the victim family immediately at handwara he may not be faulted for that. But did it occur to him or his advisors even once that he also needs to visit the families of the two ladies killed by Lashkar-i-toiba or the house of the Congress stalwart, Ghulam Rasool Kar, which the terrorists attacked recently? Chief Minister has shown this selective sensitivity many times, thus undermining his own position. Symbolic statements criticizing terrorists seem to be only for the consumption of the Union Government and not for mobilizing political opinion against separatism in the state.
The Chief Minister has to refashion his whole approach. Similarly, the Army has to behave in a fashion that doesn't lower the morale of the people. Since it knew everything. It was not desirable on its part to "conduct its own probe in the killing of youth. The crux of the matter is that both the Chief Minister and the highest Army official on the spot in Kashmir have not really acted wisely. Their actions would surely strengthen the Kashmiri extremists. And, this is what that must not be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
