A soldier’s perennial dilemma over the use of lethal force

Imagine a scenario in which a high alert has been declared in the nation’s Capital. Central police forces deployed for the security of the Supreme Court complex have been briefed about the possibility of a suicide bomber attacking the complex. The time is 11.00 hours and Guard X, who has taken position behind a temporary post surrounded by sandbags, observes a man slowly approaching the gate. The individual is wearing a big jacket and appears suspicious. Guard X alerts his colleagues, suspecting that the man might be wearing an explosive belt. He asks the individual, who is about 15 metres away, to halt. The individual continues walking and tries to put his hand inside the jacket. Fearing that he is trying to switch on an explosive belt, Guard X shouts that he should halt. However, the man continues moving. Without losing any time, Guard X fires a shot, killing the person instantaneously.

There are two possibilities in this hypothetical case. First, the local police arrives and cordons off the area. It is found that the individual was indeed wearing an explosive belt. Due to the guard’s alertness and quick action, a serious terrorist attempt has been thwarted. The police, intelligence agencies and government officials take due credit for their active networking. Guard X is promoted out of turn, felicitated and awarded by NGOs and interviewed by the media. Even the Chief Justice appreciates his soldiery action.

The second possibility is that the individual had come to meet his lawyer in the Supreme Court. He was hard of hearing, has a large dependent family and had no criminal background. The advocates’ association files a petition for the removal of armed police from the Supreme Court complex. A protest is held at Jantar Mantar and the police, paramilitary and even armed forces are criticised. Human rights activists call for a candle march and raise funds for the deceased’s family. The human rights commission asks the government to pay a compensation of Rs 50 lakh. Guard X is arrested, suspended, chargesheeted, tried by a disciplinary court and imprisoned. He, too, has a dependent family, but no one cares.

This hypothetical case raises two important questions: First, how certain armed policemen or soldiers should be that a given individual is a terrorist/insurgent and not a civilian before using lethal force against him, and second, how far policemen/soldiers should risk themselves and their comrades to reduce the risk of killing a civilian mistakenly. These questions are very relevant in India, where the security forces face a great challenge not only from insurgents/terrorists, but also from human rights activists and NGOs. Some activists portray themselves as human rights crusaders and make irresponsible statements about the functioning of the State forces in the process. The judiciary often gets influenced and places unjustified restrictions on the forces’ functioning.

The dividing line between a terrorist and civilian is not readily visible, either on the ground or in the law. Since insurgents/terrorists do not follow any rules of engagement, it is becoming increasingly difficult for a soldier to religiously follow the principle of distinction. Moreover, this principle does not specify a level of certainty that soldiers must achieve, or a level of risk they must accept to achieve that level of certainty. While a soldier has a duty not to harm a civilian, he cannot take a chance when there is a likely threat to comrades or persons he is protecting. While judicial officers have ample time to decide a case, a soldier on the ground has to take life-and-death decisions in a split second.

The author is a retired Wing Commander. Views expressed are personal.