Doesn't matter since there are more than enough number of rape cases from conflict areas (Kashmir and Assam mainly) where it has been repeatedly reinforced that they can get away without any consequences in their own court martial or allow the police take matter into their own hands. I remember one case from Assam long back where there was even a argument that it cannot be helped since these jawan's stay away from home and are sexually frustrated which is taken out on any women they can find.
Even more pertinent that a spokesperson be present. Why let it go unanswered. You are also aggregating a couple of decades here from two different areas. I do not dispute that atrocities have occurred i am pointing out that this isn't policy. Cannot lay accusations against an institution and not allow representatives to respond. Whenever i've seen these discussion on RSTV there was always a retired general there. Changed the complexion of the debate completely.
This is not so easy for a civilian to understand. These people deal with conflicts and death that is far worse than rape yet whenever the subject of rape comes up i've seen pro's completely lose the plot. Rape to them is worse than death. Makes no sense but that is what i've seen. No officer worth his salt in any professional army will condone rape. Military affairs are kept within the club so there is no easy way of finding out just what happens to people who do break rules. They don't take indiscipline lightly.
Forget conflict zones and AFSPA. You know that Hyderabad is no conflict zone right? Back in 2014,. a 11 year old boy was lured into the cantonment area here by two jawans and then set ablaze after being doused in kerosene and killed. Apparently he was sodomized before being killed. There is enough evidence even for police to show wrong doing. The incident happened in a area where nobody except military personnel could enter. Yet it was simply hushed up and the police was also prevented from taking the matter further.
I have no problem believing that authority and too much power would be abused by anybody. Army is no different. They are not saints.
This is political management taking over transparency in the interests of stability. Ensure fires burn out where they start and do not spread. Truth is the first casualty here because truth can be incendiary some times. You can apply that model to any riots or unrest that has occurred and i find this is a constant
A cop has to exist between a rock and a hard place. If he does his job, he could be transferred by the pol in charge. If he doesn't do his job the people will rake him over the coals. The police haven't been reformed since independence. It's as if the Brits never left this is why treatment can be rough. Every time i keep hearing about police reform and how urgent that is but i do not see govts attempting it. The current is no different. The present system suits the rulers more than the people. Any independent thinkers are like loose canons and will be eased out. Kiran Bedi struck me as one of those. It is ensured that these people hit a glass ceiling sooner as they are not manageable. Without management a problem can become a disaster.
How many times have you seen where army toppled the existing govt of the time and took over the country and did as they pleased.
In India ? never happened
Police & military defer to political leaders.
My colleagues are Kashmir Hindus from the smaller towns, not media. I have no issues believing them.
Anecdotes
Which country? India as we see it today never existed as a single country. It was a bunch of kingdoms which at various points of time were occupied by different rulers. The present day India is just a creation of the British.
The extent of land under our control.
Kashmir was a separate Kingdom with a king of its own till the independence. They wanted to be independent from both India and Pak. However it had huge potential for revenue generation which made it attractive to both India and Pak. Nehru ultimately bullied the King of Kashmir into handing it over to India with the then situation that if Pak tries to claim it, India would have to take military actions and Kashmir would be ruined in the process. However Indian govt failed Kashmir royally at protecting them.
Nehru didn't bully the king. The Paks violated a standstill agreement and infiltrated forcing the king to accede to Nehru. This makes it legally ours. Their whole case of plebiscite is a sham as well, the conditions for a plebiscite are both armies withdraw before it can be held. The Paks never withdrew yet still go on about plebiscite.
The importance of kashmir isn't revenue, but location. Its a gateway to the north, its also the source for the Indus. The reason the northern areas and Pok are not within our control is because the Paks had the element of surpise. They tried again in '65 with Operation Gibraltar but were foiled. We nearly lost jammu kashmir in '47.
What i find curious is we never asked for those areas back at Simla when we had the Paks on their knees. Politicians comment about this from time to time but i do not find any evidence of the military trying to regain it in previous conflicts. We continue to remonstrate about it and most recent was with the belt & road initiative. I suspect its down to geography. The terrain favours the defender. No point going for something that cannot be held. Same applies to China and Arunachal. They retreated from there because they couldn't hold it despite winning yet still claim it. The only reason Arunachal ended up in Indian control is because even the Tibetans couldn't make use of it.
The Paks can't do anything about kashmir and as time goes on their ability to influence matters only decreases. Compare '65 where they wanted to take the whole state with Kargil where the ambition was only to occupy a few summits and they ultimately failed at even that. Compare the 90's insurgency with adults fighting to kids throwing stones today and posting photos on facebook. Time is not on their side. So the present policy of just not talking them suits us.
Musharaf wanted to ratify the status quo that is both keep what they control which is the closest we've come to having any peace there but his organisation was clearly against surrendering their previous claims. They will have to eventually. Nobody is interested in helping them. The power differential is 10 to 1 presently and only set to grow.
Which is what I am saying. It is all a matter of perspective. The people who fought for India's Independence were seen as insurgents and terrorists by the British. So, its natural that any people who fight for Kashmir's independence (or any other state of India in future) would be seen the same way by the govt of India. The situations are not different. there is no such thing like the India existed as a single country from the start of time. This is all just political.
And we need to defend that space. By sidelining the separatists the govt has taken an active stance in countering them. The only force that can counter because everybody else is afraid of them. It remains to be seen how the coalition there continues, failing which the state will come under the centre. So the present policy is here to stay with a govt that is determined to do the job it is supposed to do. Enforce its writ. We are not present at the political subversion level this is why you end up with operation all out which is the last resort.
This romantic freedom fighter notion you speak of isn't fashionable in the present global context. Changed after 9/11 and further still after IS. Now the westerners take a more serious view about these matters. Any freelancer that returns from a conflict area gets looked at very closely because now they are also vulnerable
