A desperate effort to deny justice

In the Pathribal fake encounter case, the Supreme Court has apparently ruled in favour of the army: ‘Permission of the central government is needed to prosecute army officers... the army will decide in eight weeks whether the officer accused of fake encounter will be court martialled or face criminal trial.’

The apex court’s observation that, ‘such protection is necessary as an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his public duty honestly and to the best of his ability. The threat of prosecution demoralises the honest officer,’ has expectedly provoked a sharp public reaction in the valley. “The Supreme Court has made it clear that whatever the army and other agencies are doing here, they are performing their duty in good faith unless proven that something was done in bad faith,” said a known human rights activist.

A candid editorial in a national daily succinctly sums up the ordeal faced by the victims of human rights violations to bring to justice the perpetrators of worst crimes: ‘After all, when the army was last given the option of a court martial in 2006, it had said the case should be closed and rebuffed the CBI, claiming the need for prior sanction to even file a chargesheet against a serving officer.’

The editorial, further highlighting the miscarriage of justice, says, ‘in the years since, the accused officers have been treated as though their tainted record was no impediment to promotions. The army has rallied around them as an institution, providing legal support, even making the general officer commanding the main appellant in the case.’ The army as a responsible institution may have all the genuine reasons to defend its men. But the policy of protecting its personnel accused of overstretching their brief and to have evidently acted in bad faith is completely inexplicable. Or else what clearly looks to be a ‘cold-blooded murder’ in contravention of all rules was an assigned job in the line of duty to thwart perceived threats to the national security?

The Pathribal fake encounter is an open and shut case. From hunting of innocent labourers as Lashkar militants and nine more protestors getting killed to fudging of DNA tests, all tells a macabre story: a desperate and deliberate effort to frustrate the quest for seeking justice. The CBI has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Pathribal is a fake encounter case. Disgustingly, even after 12 years, the perpetrators are still enjoying state patronage, and the innocence of the killed is yet to be redeemed. In case justice can be denied in such a high profile case, the plight of lesser known violations is not difficult to anticipate. Irrespective of any Pakistan-sponsored separatist propaganda, it is hardly possible to deny that massive human rights violations have taken place in J&K during all these years of militancy. How many of these violators have been brought to justice? The defence ministry in response to an RTI query has stated that ‘out of 44 cases received for the purpose of grant of sanction from the Jammu and Kashmir government, 35 have been denied, and nine are under consideration. Further, only one case was processed by the army.’ How should this deliberate denial of justice be explained?

After the 2010 unrest, it was assumed that the UPA government after taking cue from its past mistakes is now keen to work for a political resolution of the Kashmir problem. Home minister P Chidambaram was recently asked a question that when the cabinet committee for security would meet to discuss the interlocutors’ report on Kashmir and to take final decision about revocation of AFSPA? This is how the home minister responded: ‘I wish I knew when the CCS will meet on these issues.’ This is nothing new, all along in the history the Centre has always resorted to dilly-dallying with Kashmir.

The statement of former deputy prime minister LK Advani, ‘It is because of the army that J&K is a part of India’ may invoke strong patriotic sentiments in favour of the men in olive green as saviours of the nation. However, this can also be interpreted as a jingoistic statement. A deeply alienated population may construe Advani’s statement reaffirmation of fact that New Delhi in the absence of a political approach has crushed the armed uprising only through military means. Since there is no political solution in the offing, how else the denial of justice to people can be justified?