‘LEGITIMATE’ TARGET?
Though married to a Policeman, the wife of Farooq Ahmad Sheikh was never worried about the safety of her husband. And, she had good reasons not to worry- because even though an ASI in the J&K Police, her husband was serving in the traffic department and was not involved in fighting militants. Thus, she was convinced that Sheikh was in no danger of coming to harm in encounters or becoming a potential target of militant reprisals directed against the ‘anti- militant operation’ group of the Police.
But she was wrong – for on May 10, an unarmed Sheikh who was on ‘law and order’ duty of regulating traffic at Rajpora Chowk in Pulwama, was shot in the back at point blank range and killed by two motorcycle borne militants in broad daylight . Killings in Kashmir have become commonplace with the people having got used to the ever looming threat to life and limb. And taking life in its stride, they have learnt how to move on. However, this tragic incident begs attention as it once again brings into focus the fundamental issue relating to the use of violence by armed groups against their own people. How has the ‘gun culture’ helped the ongoing movement for the ‘right to self determination’ in Kashmir is a debatable question. But, one thing is certain- it is certainly causing considerable physical harm and mental anguish to the people by creating an atmosphere of fear.
Ever since militancy erupted in Kashmir, armed groups have often been accused of killing their own people. Readers will recall the era when eminent personalities belonging to different walks of life were gunned down by “unidentified gunmen”. While the allegations made by militant groups that the Indian security forces and intelligence agencies were responsible for these incidents may be true, the militants could not conceal the fact that their hands too were stained with the blood of innocents. And even as the militants believed that their complicity in such killings was a well guarded secret, the truth was soon out in the open and was being discussed in hushed tones in every town and village of Kashmir.
Remember, it was during this very month twenty-three years ago, when ‘unidentified gunmen’ barged into the house of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq shot him dead. And twelve years ago, it was on this very day that Abdul Gani Lone too was gunned down during a commemorative rally for the Late Mirwaiz Farooq – once again by ‘unknown gunmen’. Though the militants accused the Indian ‘agencies’ for these dastardly acts, the identity of those behind these attacks soon became public knowledge. So, when former Hurriyat Conference chairman Abdul Gani Bhat admitted in 2011 that "Lone sahib, Mirwaiz Farooq and Professor Wani were not killed by the army or the police-they were targeted by our own people,” many welcomed this frank admission. And while some members of the civil society and the intelligentsia saw this as a positive development, a few even felt that this new trend of exposing ‘secret killings’ would stop the vicious cycle of senseless violence as any misdeeds of militant groups would henceforth be exposed.
However, this was not to be and the killing of ASI Farooq Ahmad Sheikh (for which the Hizbul Mujahideen has accepted responsibility), is a grim reminder of the fact that there is still no clear definition of what a ‘legitimate target’ is. And, it is inconceivable that an indigenous militant group, committed to ‘liberate’ its enslaved brethren from the ‘oppression’ of an ‘occupational force’ should itself be indulging in acts of violence against its own people and that too against those who are in no way involved in fighting the militants or opposing the movement for the ‘right to self determination’.
What has been done cannot be undone – but perhaps, a few words of condolence to the bereaved family of ASI Sheikh and a general apology by the Hizb would certainly help reduce public angst. The Hizb should realise that absence of any objection to its acts by the people is not necessarily an automatic endorsement of public approval. Moreover, when people observe that the Hizb has no qualms in killing an unarmed traffic policeman, the public opts to maintain a stoic silence since it can ill afford to do or say anything which could incur the wrath of militant outfits.
Reflecting on the ‘armed movement’ in Kashmir, Hurriyat (G) chairman SAS Geelani in his autobiography “Wullar Ke Kinaray” has remarked, “When (the) gun lost control, militant groups lost the moral standing” and this observation of the venerable octogenarian has profound wisdom. To pick up a gun is easy and so is it to kill people when one has a gun in his hand with no one to question him. But to ‘control’ the gun is what is difficult and once this gun becomes an instrument of oppression and intimidation, then militancy degenerates into terrorism. And this could prove disasterous.
The Hizb needs to guard against the general tendency that often creeps into armed groups of singularly playing- out the roles of investigator, advocate, judge and executioner. The Hizb must also realise that New Delhi has conveniently used the excuse of ‘militancy’ to promulgate draconian laws like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the brunt of which is being borne by the people in Kashmir. So, continued acts of violence by militant groups against civilians just serves to strengthen its hands. And while the people of Kashmir have bravely stood up against atrocities orchestrated by New Delhi for over two decades, I am not very sure if they can withstand simultaneous repression from militant groups.
Tailpiece: One has often heard that the security forces indulge in ‘false encounters’ for awards and pecuniary benefits. Newspaper reports tell us that Hizbul Mujahideen has announced a monetary reward of five lac rupees for their cadres who attacked and killed four Policemen at Hygam. If this report is true, then it is indeed very disturbing news- because until now, we always thought that ideology and not economics motivates our ‘freedom fighters’. So, if the Hizb introduces a system of ‘cash awards’ for successful attacks, then a very disturbing thought comes to the mind. Isn’t it possible that the lure of money could inculcate a mercenary psyche within their ranks and motivate some cash- hungry militants to choose an easy victim (like an unarmed traffic cop) and converting him into a ‘legitimate target’ (by accusing him of being an ‘informer’ or a ‘collaborator’) kill him just for the bounty?