#dnaEdit: Not with pellets

The people in the Kashmir Valley and the security forces deployed there are locked in a tragic confrontation. What has marked this latest round of clashes between the two has been the use of pellet guns by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to contain the stone-pelting protesters. The issue is not whether the fury on the streets that has been unleashed – civil society partisans argue that the protests are spontaneous in the wake of the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen (HuM) operative Burhan Wani in the middle of July — is justified or not. 

It is also clear that the security forces had done what they had been asked to do — disperse the protesters with suitable use of force. It is an uneven battle because the security forces are answerable for their actions, and it is but right that they are answerable. It is to meet this legal obligation of answerability that the CRPF informed the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that 1.3 million pellets, or 3,000 pellet cartridges, had been fired at the protesters in 32 days. This was in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the court. The 1.3 million figure could be misleading unless it is taken into account in conjunction with the 3,000 pellet cartridges. Each cartridge seems to include on average more than 3,343 pellets in each of the cartridges. 

The official figure of those fatally injured in the eyes as a result of the firing of pellets is 400. The actual figures might be many times more than that. The CRPF’s argument is that the use of pellets is non-lethal, and that if bullets were used instead, the fatalities would have been far more. The argument is not of much solace to those who have been injured and to their families. The CRPF has also pleaded that it is not possible to follow the standard operating procedure (SOP) in these situations. The debate about the use of pellets might not yield the right answers with regard to restoring normalcy in the Valley though the debate has its uses for the forces to decide whether there are other ways of dealing with the protesting crowds.

It would seem that those behind the protests — the leaders and their brains-trust — want to be taken seriously by the authorities, at the state and Central government levels. The apprehension in the minds of the authorities is that once these leaders sit at the negotiating table, they will gain legitimacy among their own followers and it would be difficult to deal with them in the next round of confrontation. But the more serious concern of the authorities should be about restoring the trust between the people and the security forces. Ordinary people cannot be constantly treated brusquely at first and brutally at a later stage when the tension escalates. The problem does not lie with the platoon commander and the ordinary soldier at every check-post. The question of deciding the strategy of how to deal with the people lies at the higher level of decision-makers.

It is the everyday friction between the people and the forces that gets exacerbated at the time of protests, with each side treating the other as ‘enemy’. If on the other hand the relations between the two are cordial when things are quiet, then it becomes easier to deal with a situation when there is a crisis. There is the problem that the community leaders who are willing to deal with the forces are treated as ‘informers’ and ‘traitors’ and they are even killed. It is a difficult situation and nothing but patience and utmost concern for the civilians will change the political atmosphere, and help in marginalising the separatists.