Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Now, army cries rights violation

Now, army cries rights violation

Author: Vishal Thapar
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: July 31, 2002

For the first time, Army personnel fighting militancy in Jammu and Kashmir have filed complaints of human rights violation, and demanded compensation from the state.

These complaints are poised to be landmark cases in the determination of the rights of the armed forces personnel fighting violent movements to preserve the integrity of the country. Over 4,100 troopers have died in J&K since 1990.

An Army officer whose daughter was killed in a terrorist-triggered blast in Kashmir has contended before the NHRC that she was targetted only because she belonged to an Army family. This was done in order to "terrorise the public and send a message that anyone associated with the Army would be eliminated".

Leena Sharma, the daughter of Captain Ram Niwas Sharma, was killed while travelling from Srinagar to Jammu in an Army bus on January 18, 2001. The bus, which was part of an Army convoy, was blown up by an improvised explosive device (IED) at village Chursoo near Awantipura.

Captain Sharma has claimed parity with "innocent victims of mindless violence" in the Delhi and Gujarat riots in demanding compensation. He has pointed out that the Prime Minister personally announced compensation of Rs 2 lakh each for the Gujarat victims.

Legal opinion is divided on the issue of compensation for Leena's killing. Former Additional Solicitor General K.T.S. Tulsi stresses that defence personnel cannot be denied human rights. "Merely because they are in uniform does not mean that they cease to be human," he says.

Tulsi sees merit in the contention that Leena was targetted because she was travelling in a military vehicle. "The family is entitled to exemplary damages," he says.

But will this not open the floodgates for similar claims, like in the Kaluchak case, where over 30 innocents were killed by terrorists only because they related to Armymen?

Constitutional lawyer Abhishek Singhvi agrees. "Despite obvious sympathies, liabilities of the government are not easy to establish. Issues of the officer's consent in allowing his daughter to travel in an Army bus and determination of negligence are involved. Obviously, an external terrorist attack can't be termed negligence," he argues.

"It's very difficult to bring this case within the established slot of Tort Law or Criminal Law. Hence, liability will remain a vexed issue," says Singhvi.

The other case relates to the police torture of Naik Barkat Hussain of 18 Mahar Regiment. Police charged Armymen, including Hussain, with killing a local, Fazal Kahi. Hussain was subjected to third degree and reduced to a cripple, before the Army could rescue him from the police. Today, he can't use either of his arms. The murder charge was never proved.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements