On 24 June, two incidents 3,236 km apart—Zadoora village in Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir and Itham village in Imphal East district of Manipur—severely dented the stellar reputation of the Indian Army with respect to operations ‘in aid of civil power ’. At Zadoora, soldiers led by an officer entered two mosques at the time of Fajr prayers and allegedly forced the muezzins to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. At Itham, a mob led by Meitei women forced the Army to release 12 members of Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL), a terrorist organisation.
Both incidents were the first of their kind in the history of the Army’s employment ‘in aid of civil power’ and were widely covered by the media. There has been no formal statement or clarification by the Army about the Zadoora incident. However, the Itham incident was ‘owned’ by the Army in a ‘self-congratulatory’ tweet for showing its human face by avoiding civilian casualties. Actions at both places were in gross violation of the Army’s standard operating procedures, tactics, rules, regulations and the law. A question mark has been placed on its secular and non-partisan conduct.
Desecration of mosques
People-friendly counter-insurgency operations, best described as ‘iron fist in a velvet glove’—velvet glove for the people and iron fist for the terrorists—have been the hallmark of the Indian Army. Keeping in view that Islam, the religion of the majority in J&K, is one of the main drivers of the 34-year-old secessionist insurgency, the Army has spared no effort to uphold the constitutional values and its secular ethos. Extreme sensitivity has been shown towards religious sentiments, particularly after the burning down of the 435-year-old historical Charar-e-Sharief Sufi shrine and mosque in 1995 by the terrorists during a prolonged siege . Barring a few rogue actions at lower level, which have been promptly dealt with, this ethos has been upheld.
At 02:00 hours on 24 June, a patrol of 50 Rashtriya Rifles led by a major arrived in Zadoora village allegedly to train newly inducted soldiers in counter-insurgency operations. During the course of the next three to four hours, as per the version of the villagers, some persons were allegedly summoned and beaten up by the soldiers when they refused to open the doors of the mosque and chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. The soldiers then went to a mosque and forced the muezzin to shout ‘Jai Shri Ram’ on the loudspeaker in rhythm parodying the Islamic style of the azaan. Some bystanders were also made to chant ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’. Muslims have reservations about the use of the word ‘mata’, which in their perception signifies a goddess.
The incident triggered protests and wide condemnation including by three former chief ministers. The Army has issued no formal statement nor expressed any regret over the incident. However, unconfirmed reports suggest that the Commanding Officer of 50 Rashtriya Rifles went to the village and apologised. The media has also quoted Army sources acknowledging the forced shouting of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, but they denied the allegation of entering the mosque to force ‘Jai Shri Ram’ chants.
As per my assessment, this was a rogue action by an errant officer. A simple statement by the Corps/Command headquarters expressing regret and ordering a Court of Inquiry against defaulters would have upheld the Army’s reputation. Unfortunately, it is the crude damage-control efforts that have done more damage. Silence only leads to exaggerated rumours and enhances the credibility of the allegations. The Army’s efforts to ‘own’ the imposition of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ to garner support of the radical Right-wing and to ‘disown’ the imposition of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ to uphold its tarnished secular credentials can best be described as naive . One only hopes that the malice of communal majoritarianism does not run deep within the armed forces. It is still not too late to make amends by a public apology by the Corps/Army Commander as done on 7 November 2014 and then highlighted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 14 November 2014 at a public rally, and ordering a Court of Inquiry for follow-up disciplinary action.
Also read: Military must read govt’s cryptic signals. Get on with integrating theatre commands
Capitulation before a mob
While governments have released or granted safe passage to terrorists holding hostages or when holed up in mosques/shrines, the Army has never done so because it would diminish its credibility as the nation’s instrument of last resort. Rubaiya Sayeed‘s 1989 abduction, Indian Oil executive director K Doraiswamy‘s 1991 abduction, the 1993 Hazratbal siege, and the 1999 Kandahar hijack are notable cases when the government either released or gave safe passage to terrorists. These ‘surrenders’ to the terrorists invariably acted as a catalyst for the insurgency.
Indian Army has operated ‘in aid of civil power’ since Independence and successfully dealt with hundreds of cases of violent mobs both during riots/agitations and counter-insurgency operations. In fact, many such cases were from Manipur, where women have a long history of leading agitations. Even in J&K, mobs including a large number of women used to interfere with counter-insurgency operations. The time-tested principle of ‘minimum force’ has never failed to dispense mobs. The Army uses minimum force for effect and does not resort to police methods of firing in the air.
It is fallacious to conclude that firing at a mob using ‘minimum force’ results in a large number of casualties, which are often the result of indiscriminate firing in panic or by design. There have been some notable cases in J&K, mostly involving the police/CAPF, and one exceptional case involving the Army in 1990. The Supreme Court, the central government, and the Army have laid down elaborate guidelines for application of ‘minimum force’, which include specific targets, aiming below the knee, and non-use of automatic weapons. The Army is protected by Criminal Procedure Code Sections 130 to132 with or without the presence of a magistrate, as well as under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in disturbed areas. It is not clear whether AFSPA is applicable in Itham village; however, the protection of Section 132 would continue to be applicable.
As per the explanatory tweet by 3 Corps, the information was specific and hence the operation would have been planned at brigade level and executed at battalion level. Thus, I rule out the possibility that the commander on site was overawed by the situation. Keeping in view the situation in Manipur since 3 May, the Army should have coordinated with CAPF/police for crowd management. It appears that crowd management failed due to breakdown of the outer cordon or inadequate planning.
Having captured the terrorists, it is inexplicable why ‘minimum force’ was not used to disperse the mob. “Keeping in view the sensitivity of use of kinetic force against large irate mob led by women and likely casualties due to such action…” is a lame excuse for abject capitulation before a mob. As per a report by DNA, 38 Kuki-Zo rioters were killed in a single day in Churachandpur by the Manipur police.
If that was not enough, the tweet was self-adulatory — “Mature decision on part of Operational Commander shows humane face of the Indian Army to avoid any collateral damage during the ongoing unrest in Manipur”—compounding the failure. The military hierarchy seemed to have a latent apprehension about the potential political fallout of using ‘ against a Meitei mob.
Also read: New road to DBO not enough to stop PLA. Tunnel under Saser La pass is the solution
The way forward
The Indian military has a stellar record in conducting operations ‘in aid of civil power’, both when requisitioned for maintenance of law and order and in counter-insurgency operations in a non-partisan manner while upholding human rights and the law of the land. This image certainly took a beating on 24 June. In 2017, Major Leetul Gogoi was lauded and rewarded for using the novel “human shield tactics” for organising the “great rescue” of Election Commission officials from 1000 strong violent mob. A standalone rogue action, justified by a concocted story, was sold to the nation as unique act of bravery. In sharp contrast, 12 hardcore terrorists led by the self-styled Lt Col, Moirang Tama aka Uttam, – mastermind of killing 18 soldiers of 6 Dogra in an ambush on 4 June, 2015 – were handed over to a mob without a stone being pelted or a shot being fired.
While the desecration of the mosque seems to have been a standalone rogue action, the capitulation before a mob has set a very wrong precedence for mobs to follow in agitations all over the country. The Army has become vulnerable to allegations of being non-secular and engaging in partisan conduct. There is a need for a thorough inquiry to fix accountability, learn lessons, punish the guilty and course correct. The constitutional instrument of last resort must not lose its credibility.
Lt Gen H S Panag PVSM, AVSM (R) served in the Indian Army for 40 years. He was GOC in C Northern Command and Central Command. Post retirement, he was Member of Armed Forces Tribunal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)