The centre on Friday moved an application in the Supreme Court to quash the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-puts-stay-on-fir-against-major-aditya-kumar-32580" target="_blank">FIR registered against Major Aditya</a> in connection to the Shopian firing incident case.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has already restricted any probe against&nbsp;Major Aditya until the next date of hearing on April 24.

The Jammu and Kashmir government had also apprised the apex court&nbsp;that Major Aditya Kumar&#39;s name does not figure in the FIR lodged against Army personnel involved in the Shopian firing.

Earlier, the father of Army Major Aditya Kumar,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/shopian-firing-majors-father-moves-sc-asks-for-fir-to-be-quashed-32236" target="_blank">Karamveer Singh had also&nbsp;moved the Supreme Court</a> seeking to quash the FIR against his son.

Singh&#39;s demands were based on the claims that the soldiers were exercising their rights to defend themselves.&nbsp;

Three civilians were killed on January 27 when Army personnel retaliated at a&nbsp;stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Centre has today moved an application to quash the FIR registered against Major Aditya in connection with the Shopian firing incident case: Aishwarya Bhati, Lawyer of Major Aditya&#39;s father Lt Col Karamveer Singh to ANI (File pic) <a href="https://t.co/fwIrAu7OHJ">pic.twitter.com/fwIrAu7OHJ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/972033411354451969?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has already restricted any probe against Major Aditya until the next date of hearing on April 24

The centre on Friday moved an application in the Supreme Court to quash the FIR registered against Major Aditya in connection to the Shopian firing incident case. The Supreme Court has already restricted any probe against Major Aditya until the next date of hearing on April 24. The Jammu and Kashmir government had also apprised the apex court that Major Aditya Kumar's name does not figure in the FIR lodged against Army personnel involved in the Shopian firing. Earlier, the father of Army Major Aditya Kumar, Karamveer Singh had also moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the FIR against his son. Singh's demands were based on the claims that the soldiers were exercising their rights to defend themselves. Three civilians were killed on January 27 when Army personnel retaliated at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian. Centre has today moved an application to quash the FIR registered against Major Aditya in connection with the Shopian firing incident case: Aishwarya Bhati, Lawyer of Major Aditya's father Lt Col Karamveer Singh to ANI (File pic) pic.twitter.com/fwIrAu7OHJ — ANI (@ANI) March 9, 2018 ×

Shopian firing: Centre moves Supreme Court to quash FIR against Major Aditya

The Jammu and Kashmir government today told the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar was not named as an accused in the FIR of the January 27 Shopian firing incident in which three civilians were killed.

Taking on record the statement of the state government, the apex court said there should be no investigation till April 24 in the case.

&quot;Let the matter be listed for final disposal on April 24. In the meantime, there shall be no investigation on the basis of FIR till then,&quot; a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

The apex court had on February 12 restrained the Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any &quot;coercive steps&quot; against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar, who was earlier reportedly named as accused in the case.

Three civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian on January 27 this year, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident.

The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (the penal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir).

The apex court was hearing the plea of Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, seeking to quash the FIR against his son.

Singh had said in his petition that his son, a major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was &quot;wrongly and arbitrarily&quot; named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under AFSPA and was isolated by an &quot;unruly and deranged&quot; mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles.

During the hearing today, the counsel representing Jammu and Kashmir told the bench that Major Aditya was not named as accused anywhere in the FIR.

&nbsp;

Supreme court has halted the investigation till April 24 in the case

The Jammu and Kashmir government today told the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar was not named as an accused in the FIR of the January 27 Shopian firing incident in which three civilians were killed. Taking on record the statement of the state government, the apex court said there should be no investigation till April 24 in the case. "Let the matter be listed for final disposal on April 24. In the meantime, there shall be no investigation on the basis of FIR till then," a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said. The apex court had on February 12 restrained the Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any "coercive steps" against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar, who was earlier reportedly named as accused in the case. Three civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian on January 27 this year, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident. The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (the penal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir). The apex court was hearing the plea of Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, seeking to quash the FIR against his son. Singh had said in his petition that his son, a major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was "wrongly and arbitrarily" named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under AFSPA and was isolated by an "unruly and deranged" mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles. During the hearing today, the counsel representing Jammu and Kashmir told the bench that Major Aditya was not named as accused anywhere in the FIR.

Shopian case: J&K says Major Aditya not named as accused, Supreme Court halts probe

According to a Supreme Court order, no probe would be initiated against Major Aditya until the next date of hearing on April 24. Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir government apprised the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar&#39;s name does not figure in the FIR lodged against Army personnel involved in the Shopian firing.

A three-judge bench stayed the investigation into the Shopian firing till the next date of hearing on April 24.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Shopian firing incident case: Supreme Court says no probe would be initiated against Major Aditya till the next date of hearing, April 24. <a href="https://t.co/32K23b1k7A">pic.twitter.com/32K23b1k7A</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/970564699526844417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Supreme Court was listening to retired Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh&#39;s plea seeking to challenge the FIR against his son Major Aditya.

&quot;Major Aditya is an army officer and cannot be treated like ordinary criminals by the J&amp;K police,&quot; the apex court noted.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had directed the J&amp;K government not to take any &quot;coercive steps&quot; against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar.

The Mehbooba Mufti-led government retorted that the Army personnel do not respond to the letters addressed to them and asked if the Army has the licence to kill.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court was listening to retired Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh's plea seeking to challenge the FIR against his son Major Aditya

According to a Supreme Court order, no probe would be initiated against Major Aditya until the next date of hearing on April 24. Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir government apprised the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar's name does not figure in the FIR lodged against Army personnel involved in the Shopian firing. A three-judge bench stayed the investigation into the Shopian firing till the next date of hearing on April 24. Shopian firing incident case: Supreme Court says no probe would be initiated against Major Aditya till the next date of hearing, April 24. pic.twitter.com/32K23b1k7A — ANI (@ANI) March 5, 2018 × The Supreme Court was listening to retired Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh's plea seeking to challenge the FIR against his son Major Aditya. "Major Aditya is an army officer and cannot be treated like ordinary criminals by the J&K police," the apex court noted. The Supreme Court had directed the J&K government not to take any "coercive steps" against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar. The Mehbooba Mufti-led government retorted that the Army personnel do not respond to the letters addressed to them and asked if the Army has the licence to kill.

Shopian firing case: No probe against Major Aditya until next date of hearing

If verbal gymnastics was an Olympic sport, there is little doubt that Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, the Raksha Mantri, would win the Gold Medal hands down.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

One minute, in a confidential conversation with Ms. Mehbooba Mufti, the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, she is supportive of the Chief Minister&rsquo;s intention to file an FIR against the Army unit that fired in self-defence in the Shopian incident, for &quot;carelessness&quot; on their part.&nbsp; Ten days later as the Supreme Court stays the FIR, the RM unashamedly does a perfect verbal somersault and publicly states that the Supreme Court&rsquo;s directions were expected and that the Central Government supports our &ldquo;brave soldiers&rdquo;! One would not blame the military if it concluded that with friends like her, who needs enemies?

&nbsp;

At the outset it needs to be clarified that despite all the brouhaha in the media, the military veteran community and even among prominent members of the BJP and RSS, for instance, Mr. Subramanium Swamy, the Police can lodge an FIR against the Army, even in a disturbed area where AFSPA is in force if it concludes that a cognizable crime has been committed.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

While AFSPA, in essence, gives the Army operating in disturbed areas police powers of arrest and search without a warrant, given the hostile environment they are required to operate in, Section 7 of the Act only prevents prosecution of Army personnel without the sanction of the Central Government. Even a layman is conversant with the fact that filing of an FIR implies only commencement of an investigation.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Thus, the filing of the FIR in such circumstances means little and would not in any way adversely impact the morale of personnel, provided they have organisational support. While Ms. Sitharaman&rsquo;s flip-flops have seriously damaged the credibility of the Central Government, sadly the wishy-washy comments of the Northern Army Commander, as well as the lack of any public statement from the Army Chief in support of his troops, has not helped matters. It is probably this perceived lack of organisational support that forced Major Aditya Kumar&rsquo;s father to approach the Supreme Court with the plea to quash the FIR.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; While Mehbooba Mufti could well be ignorant, the Police are certainly fully aware that an FIR can only be lodged against an individual or group when a cognizable offence has been committed by them. In all other circumstances, a Police Report needs to be filed and the case brought before a Magistrate who then directs whether an FIR needs to be filed or not based on the evidence available.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the present instance, it needs only a superficial understanding of the law to conclude that firing in self-defence against a mob intent on lynching soldiers, snatching their arms, destroying government property and preventing them from carrying out their duties can hardly be considered a cognizable offence. As a matter of fact, the Police had failed in its duties by not lodging an FIR against the mob and arresting those involved. It is incumbent on the authorities to hold to account those officers responsible for this lapse. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

In any case if there was any doubt as to what exactly occurred and in the version of events brought out by the Army, a Magisterial Enquiry on the basis of a Police Report would have been sufficient to place the facts on record and that would have allowed the authorities to proceed with the case on its merit. Incidentally, the State Government also simultaneously ordered a Magisterial Enquiry along with the FIR, though this Enquiry will have little credibility given the circumstances.

&nbsp;

There is a problem in the manner in which this incident has been dealt with. Clearly, there has been unwarranted and unethical attempts by both the ruling alliance and the opposition in the State to politicise the issue and curry favour with the people.&nbsp; Mehbooba Mufti&rsquo;s assertion in the Assembly while defending the police action of lodging an FIR against the Army by suggesting that&nbsp; &quot;black sheep can be anywhere&quot;, without waiting for a report from an impartial investigator clearly suggests blatant bias against the Army as well as efforts on her Governments part to exert pressure on the Police to target the Army.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp; More worrisome is the fact that thanks to judicial activism, AFSPA has lost much of its effectiveness and this has greatly restricted the Army&rsquo;s ability to respond robustly and proactively to security threats for fear of subsequent criminal cases against them. Moreover, the State Government has been excessively lenient towards citizens indulging in acts of stone pelting and other violent activities. As a result, the Army finds it extremely difficult to carry out area domination patrols, especially in rural areas, due to attacks on them by unrestrained mobs. The Army, thus, finds itself losing control of the countryside, a critical element in any counter-insurgency strategy, if it is to succeed.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;There is little doubt that politicians are targeting the military for their own selfish reasons. As we are well aware, no insurgency can be resolved without a political solution being implemented. Unfortunately, in our case, neither the State nor the Central Government is willing to put forward a solution that can help resolve the issue. In such circumstances, the Army will continue to pay the price unless it takes drastic action and refuses to be played.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The worry is that if the military hierarchy refuses to stand up and confront the political leadership, it is only a matter of time before the rank and file, who bear the brunt of such operations, may take matters into their own hands. That would disastrous for the military.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Finally, of course, this government does have another option; it could arrange to hand over the situation to Mr. Bhagwat and his merry band of volunteers in khaki who believe they can achieve in three days what the Army hasn&rsquo;t in three decades. If nothing else this ludicrous suggestion may lead to the death of separatists from laughing too much and that wouldn&rsquo;t count as murder would it?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

While Ms. Sitharaman’s flip-flops have seriously damaged the credibility of the Central Government, sadly the wishy-washy comments of the Northern Army Commander, as well as the lack of any public statement from the Army Chief in support of his troops, has not helped matters.

If verbal gymnastics was an Olympic sport, there is little doubt that Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, the Raksha Mantri, would win the Gold Medal hands down. One minute, in a confidential conversation with Ms. Mehbooba Mufti, the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, she is supportive of the Chief Minister’s intention to file an FIR against the Army unit that fired in self-defence in the Shopian incident, for "carelessness" on their part. Ten days later as the Supreme Court stays the FIR, the RM unashamedly does a perfect verbal somersault and publicly states that the Supreme Court’s directions were expected and that the Central Government supports our “brave soldiers”! One would not blame the military if it concluded that with friends like her, who needs enemies? At the outset it needs to be clarified that despite all the brouhaha in the media, the military veteran community and even among prominent members of the BJP and RSS, for instance, Mr. Subramanium Swamy, the Police can lodge an FIR against the Army, even in a disturbed area where AFSPA is in force if it concludes that a cognizable crime has been committed. While AFSPA, in essence, gives the Army operating in disturbed areas police powers of arrest and search without a warrant, given the hostile environment they are required to operate in, Section 7 of the Act only prevents prosecution of Army personnel without the sanction of the Central Government. Even a layman is conversant with the fact that filing of an FIR implies only commencement of an investigation. Thus, the filing of the FIR in such circumstances means little and would not in any way adversely impact the morale of personnel, provided they have organisational support. While Ms. Sitharaman’s flip-flops have seriously damaged the credibility of the Central Government, sadly the wishy-washy comments of the Northern Army Commander, as well as the lack of any public statement from the Army Chief in support of his troops, has not helped matters. It is probably this perceived lack of organisational support that forced Major Aditya Kumar’s father to approach the Supreme Court with the plea to quash the FIR. While Mehbooba Mufti could well be ignorant, the Police are certainly fully aware that an FIR can only be lodged against an individual or group when a cognizable offence has been committed by them. In all other circumstances, a Police Report needs to be filed and the case brought before a Magistrate who then directs whether an FIR needs to be filed or not based on the evidence available. In the present instance, it needs only a superficial understanding of the law to conclude that firing in self-defence against a mob intent on lynching soldiers, snatching their arms, destroying government property and preventing them from carrying out their duties can hardly be considered a cognizable offence. As a matter of fact, the Police had failed in its duties by not lodging an FIR against the mob and arresting those involved. It is incumbent on the authorities to hold to account those officers responsible for this lapse. In any case if there was any doubt as to what exactly occurred and in the version of events brought out by the Army, a Magisterial Enquiry on the basis of a Police Report would have been sufficient to place the facts on record and that would have allowed the authorities to proceed with the case on its merit. Incidentally, the State Government also simultaneously ordered a Magisterial Enquiry along with the FIR, though this Enquiry will have little credibility given the circumstances. There is a problem in the manner in which this incident has been dealt with. Clearly, there has been unwarranted and unethical attempts by both the ruling alliance and the opposition in the State to politicise the issue and curry favour with the people. Mehbooba Mufti’s assertion in the Assembly while defending the police action of lodging an FIR against the Army by suggesting that "black sheep can be anywhere", without waiting for a report from an impartial investigator clearly suggests blatant bias against the Army as well as efforts on her Governments part to exert pressure on the Police to target the Army. More worrisome is the fact that thanks to judicial activism, AFSPA has lost much of its effectiveness and this has greatly restricted the Army’s ability to respond robustly and proactively to security threats for fear of subsequent criminal cases against them. Moreover, the State Government has been excessively lenient towards citizens indulging in acts of stone pelting and other violent activities. As a result, the Army finds it extremely difficult to carry out area domination patrols, especially in rural areas, due to attacks on them by unrestrained mobs. The Army, thus, finds itself losing control of the countryside, a critical element in any counter-insurgency strategy, if it is to succeed. There is little doubt that politicians are targeting the military for their own selfish reasons. As we are well aware, no insurgency can be resolved without a political solution being implemented. Unfortunately, in our case, neither the State nor the Central Government is willing to put forward a solution that can help resolve the issue. In such circumstances, the Army will continue to pay the price unless it takes drastic action and refuses to be played. The worry is that if the military hierarchy refuses to stand up and confront the political leadership, it is only a matter of time before the rank and file, who bear the brunt of such operations, may take matters into their own hands. That would disastrous for the military. Finally, of course, this government does have another option; it could arrange to hand over the situation to Mr. Bhagwat and his merry band of volunteers in khaki who believe they can achieve in three days what the Army hasn’t in three decades. If nothing else this ludicrous suggestion may lead to the death of separatists from laughing too much and that wouldn’t count as murder would it? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Will this brouhaha over Major Aditya help the Army? No

The act of registering an FIR against Major Aditya Kumar in connection with last month&#39;s Shopian firing case shows the appeasing attitude of political hierarchy of Jammu and Kashmir. It shows them in poor light, more importantly, such an act actually lowers the morale of Armed Forces operating in Kashmir. It also shows the unawareness of the officials responsible for the FIR about the provisions of the AFSPA.

&nbsp;

The incident has been covered widely by the media. Let me highlight some important issues which the nation must think in the national interest.

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; FIR registered against Army Major Aditya Kumar in connection with last month&#39;s Shopian firing case does not stand as the military personnel was there not by choice. They were there because the country wanted them to be there; it was their duty to protect the country in a disturbed region.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; The column was attacked by stone pelters with an intent to hurt the forces, hence, criminal force was applied against them. Why the authorities did not register FIR against the stone pelters.

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Major Aditya Kumar and his troops had no enmity with the persons who were killed in the incident.

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; The Army personnel have the right of self-defence too

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; As per the law in vogue, in a &lsquo;Disturbed Area&rsquo;, the officer is duty bound to protect his subordinates and the government property and can use force. The minimum force is to be used but the decision as to how much force is the minimum force is a decision to be taken by the commander on the spot, based on his judgement. &nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Army after the due warning is expected to fire for effect and not in the air, unlike police, which can use measures like tear gas or firing in air.

&nbsp;

Under the circumstances in which Maj Aditya and his troops were placed, had they not taken any action, they would have been either lynched or burnt. The officer and men, in my opinion, have acted in self-defence as per powers conferred to them by law.

&nbsp;

It needs to be understood that the Army is the instrument of last resort and if they are scarred by legal actions, then the morale of young officers and men will be affected adversely. If they get overcautious, we have to blame our political hierarchy of pushing them into fortress mentality, wherein they will not come out and protect people due to fear of litigation which is exactly desired by Pakistan and militants. If we are soft towards the militants, no corner of the country will be safe. I do not understand why politicians of Kashmir for their petty gains do not understand this, despite an attack on our Parliament.

&nbsp;

It also needs to be understood that under the AFSPA, the state has to take permission of the Central Government to proceed against the officer, which the Central Government can refuse, which has happened in many such cases earlier. Even if the permission is to be given a set procedure is to be followed.

&nbsp;

I must salute the honourable Supreme Court of India which has put a stay on the FIR registered against Army Major Aditya Kumar in connection with this&nbsp; Shopian firing case. The apex court also directed that no coercive action be taken against Major Aditya in connection with the incident in which three civilians were killed and nine others were injured.

&nbsp;

It should also be a matter of concern that Indian Army unlike most armies in the world is known to use minimum force and does not use even high calibre weapons. Nowhere in the world, you can see an example of an armed soldier being beaten by a lady, and the soldier is showing resilience to tolerate it, and taking such ill treatment from people, whom the soldiers have saved in floods a year earlier. Let us not push our soldiers to wall, the consequences can be disastrous, definitely not in the nation&#39;s interest. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The column was attacked by stone pelters with an intent to hurt the forces, hence, a criminal force was applied against them. Why the authorities did not register FIR against the stone pelters?

The act of registering an FIR against Major Aditya Kumar in connection with last month's Shopian firing case shows the appeasing attitude of political hierarchy of Jammu and Kashmir. It shows them in poor light, more importantly, such an act actually lowers the morale of Armed Forces operating in Kashmir. It also shows the unawareness of the officials responsible for the FIR about the provisions of the AFSPA. The incident has been covered widely by the media. Let me highlight some important issues which the nation must think in the national interest. • FIR registered against Army Major Aditya Kumar in connection with last month's Shopian firing case does not stand as the military personnel was there not by choice. They were there because the country wanted them to be there; it was their duty to protect the country in a disturbed region. • The column was attacked by stone pelters with an intent to hurt the forces, hence, criminal force was applied against them. Why the authorities did not register FIR against the stone pelters. • Major Aditya Kumar and his troops had no enmity with the persons who were killed in the incident. • The Army personnel have the right of self-defence too • As per the law in vogue, in a ‘Disturbed Area’, the officer is duty bound to protect his subordinates and the government property and can use force. The minimum force is to be used but the decision as to how much force is the minimum force is a decision to be taken by the commander on the spot, based on his judgement. • Army after the due warning is expected to fire for effect and not in the air, unlike police, which can use measures like tear gas or firing in air. Under the circumstances in which Maj Aditya and his troops were placed, had they not taken any action, they would have been either lynched or burnt. The officer and men, in my opinion, have acted in self-defence as per powers conferred to them by law. It needs to be understood that the Army is the instrument of last resort and if they are scarred by legal actions, then the morale of young officers and men will be affected adversely. If they get overcautious, we have to blame our political hierarchy of pushing them into fortress mentality, wherein they will not come out and protect people due to fear of litigation which is exactly desired by Pakistan and militants. If we are soft towards the militants, no corner of the country will be safe. I do not understand why politicians of Kashmir for their petty gains do not understand this, despite an attack on our Parliament. It also needs to be understood that under the AFSPA, the state has to take permission of the Central Government to proceed against the officer, which the Central Government can refuse, which has happened in many such cases earlier. Even if the permission is to be given a set procedure is to be followed. I must salute the honourable Supreme Court of India which has put a stay on the FIR registered against Army Major Aditya Kumar in connection with this Shopian firing case. The apex court also directed that no coercive action be taken against Major Aditya in connection with the incident in which three civilians were killed and nine others were injured. It should also be a matter of concern that Indian Army unlike most armies in the world is known to use minimum force and does not use even high calibre weapons. Nowhere in the world, you can see an example of an armed soldier being beaten by a lady, and the soldier is showing resilience to tolerate it, and taking such ill treatment from people, whom the soldiers have saved in floods a year earlier. Let us not push our soldiers to wall, the consequences can be disastrous, definitely not in the nation's interest. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Thank God, we had Supreme Court to protect Major Aditya

major-aditya

Major Aditya, News on Major Aditya, stories on Major Aditya, articles on Major Aditya, Major Aditya stories at Wion, Major Aditya news, Major Aditya latest news

major aditya

Shopian firing: Centre moves Supreme Court to quash FIR against Major Aditya

Shopian case: J&K says Major Aditya not named as accused, Supreme Court halts probe

Shopian firing case: No probe against Major Aditya until next date of hearing

Opinion: Will this brouhaha over Major Aditya help the Army? No

Opinion: Thank God, we had Supreme Court to protect Major Aditya