The recent emotional outburst of the patron of a mainstream party regarding the decision of erstwhile Maharaja of Kashmir as well as Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the late father of the patron, speaks volumes about the unbridled actions of the security forces. He went to the extent of declaring his parties intention to re-think about this historical decision on which the entire Indian case of Kashmir dispute is based if the security forces are not checked in their wanton behavior. Several observers of the political scene in Kashmir believe that these are typical histrionics of Dr.Abdullah. During his earlier tenures he has been advocating outright attack on the mainland Pakistan and bombing of militant training camps on the other side of LOC. However, regardless of his past behavior, the present stance cannot be easily dismissed as an election gimmick. This is especially so because the other mainstream party has been persistently complaining about the excesses of security forces and has been demanding their withdrawal. It is for the first time in the long history of this dispute that the pro-India parties are vehemently questioning the actions of the Indian security forces. Probably these parties are apprehensive that the extreme alienation of the common masses caused by brutal and indiscriminate actions of the forces may render them totally irrelevant. All of them are trying to assuage the ruffled feelings of people by taking issues against the security forces. On their part the security forces term these incidents as “collateral damage”. They contend that such damage is bound to occur in a situation of conflict. However, the issue is not that simple. Collateral damage is a U.S. Military term for unintended or incidental damage during a military operation. The term, which originated as a euphemism, during the Vietnam War, can refer to friendly fire, or the killing of non-combatants and the destruction of their property. But the damage is supposed to be proportionate to the size of conflict as also there are International Laws and Rules governing all types of conflicts. According to International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC), the International Humanitarian Law, also known as the law of armed conflict or the law of war, is the body of rules that, in time of war, protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities. It limits the methods and means of warfare. Its purpose is to limit and prevent human suffering in times of armed conflict. The rules are to be observed not only by governments and their armed forces, but also by armed opposition groups and any other parties to a conflict. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977 are the principal instruments of humanitarian law. Chapter IV of the basic rules of Geneva Convention specifically relates to “Protection of Civilian Persons and Populations in Time of War”. The fundamental principle states that “In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimited”. There are specific instructions for the protection of civilian populations in any conflict. Any person not belonging to the armed forces is considered a civilian. The prohibition of attacks on civilian persons and civilian property includes all acts of violence, whether committed in offence or defence. The prohibition includes attacks launched indiscriminately. In fact Geneva Convention mentions that even the Environment itself must be protected against widespread, long-term and severe damage. Special protection has been given to cultural property and heritage of a place which would include religious shrines etc. In fact it has been specified that in order to implement the rules protecting civilian persons and properties, those planning or deciding on an attack must do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are definitely military objectives. They are also directed to ensure minimum incidental losses or damage to civilian persons and property. It has been specifically stated that the attackers must refrain from launching their operations, if the losses and damage appear to be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage. Unfortunately, all these International Laws and Rules have been thrown to winds by the Indian Security forces tackling armed uprising in Kashmir. Just to neutralize one or two militants entire localities or even villages are destroyed by mortar shelling. Scores of civilians are killed in “cross fire”, a term used to define indiscriminate firing. It seems that instead of collateral damage, the operations can be classified as “Scorched Earth Policy”.

A scorched earth policy is a military tactic which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. Apparently a translation of the Chinese phrase jiao tu , the term refers to the practice of burning crops to deny the enemy food sources, although it is by no means limited to food stocks, and can include shelter, transportation, communications and industrial resources, which are often of equal or greater military value in modern warfare, as modern armies generally carry their own food supplies. The practice may be carried out by an army in enemy territory, or by an army in its own home territory. The forces seem to be taking Kashmir as enemy territory and are making an attempt to frighten the civilian population into submission so that the militants do not get any shelter or food. Unfortunately, they are doing the reverse. Not only are they creating more militants but are getting them sympathies of civilian population in general. These tactics are reminiscent of the actions of some sections of Pakistan Army in Bangladesh, which cost Pakistan its eastern wing. There seems to be a dichotomy. On one hand some top officers are following policy of befriending civilian population through Sadhbhavana programes while on the other hand some others are alienating the population more and more. The most unfortunate part is that the ICRC is taking absolutely no notice of these happenings. They state that India does not recognize the happenings in Kashmir as a situation of conflict. It claims these to be “acts of terrorism” by some “misled youth” instigated and supported by a neighbouring country. However, these acts have been going on now for couple of decades and the number of youth already killed exceeds over a hundred thousand. Even the official figures are at least more than half of that. India is a signatory to Geneva Convention and is bound by its rules concerning all types of armed conflict. In spite of this they have given only limited access to ICRC. They can visit and try to improve the conditions of detenues only. One fails to understand why ICRC is not taking cognizance of the damage to civilian persons and property? One of the reasons is the inability of the Kashmiri leadership to represent its case forcefully. The other universal reason is the post 9/11 attitude of the western countries comprising the bulk of active members and policy makers of ICRC. Unfortunately, these days any situation of conflict involving Muslims anywhere in the world is considered beyond the bounds of International Humanitarian Law, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, or Kashmir! Even if one tries to play down the international implications of these happenings, these are causing severe long term damage to India’s case in Kashmir. It has been observed that the Indian Intellectuals as well as media is very particular about safe guarding their “National Interest”. However, what is happening in Kashmir at present is definitely not in India’s interest. There are only two conclusions. Either the political bosses in Delhi are totally ignorant of the actual ground reality of these incidents or they have mentally given up Kashmir and are holding it by force as long as they can!