<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/very-good-news-to-receive-warm-statement-from-north-korea-tweets-trump-139767">Very good news to receive </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/very-good-news-to-receive-warm-statement-from-north-korea-tweets-trump-139767">warm</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/very-good-news-to-receive-warm-statement-from-north-korea-tweets-trump-139767"> statement from North Korea, tweets Trump</a></p>

<p>After North Korea reiterated its commitment to talks, US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter that it was "very good news". Hinting at a U-turn after calling off a historic summit with North Korea, the US President wrote," we will soon see where it will lead".</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-minister-hd-kumaraswamy-wins-floor-test-in-karnataka-assembly-139553">Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy wins floor test in Karnataka Assembly</a></p>

<p>Karnataka Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy on Friday won the trust vote in the Karnataka assembly shortly after he moved the moved the motion of confidence.&nbsp</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/hotel-brawl-incident-army-orders-court-of-inquiry-against-major-gogoi-139726">Hotel brawl incident: Army orders court of inquiry against Major Gogoi</a></p>

<p>The Indian Army on Friday ordered a court of inquiry against Major Nitin Leetul Gogoi who was briefly detained by police in Srinagar after an altercation when he was allegedly trying to enter a hotel with an 18-year-old woman.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbse-class-12-results-to-be-declared-tomorrow-139740">CBSE class 12 results to be declared tomorrow</a></p>

<p>The results of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBSE) class 12 board exams will be declared tomorrow (May 26).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/bangladesh-pm-sheikh-hasina-seeks-indias-help-in-rohingya-crisis-139710">Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina seeks India's help in Rohingya crisis</a></p>

<p>Speaking at the convocation ceremony in West Bengal, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina sought help from PM Modi in the Rohingya crisis.She asked India&nbspto intervene and ask Myanmar to take back Rohingyas.</p>


Very good news to receive warm statement from North Korea, tweets Trump After North Korea reiterated its commitment to talks, US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter that it was "very good news". Hinting at a U-turn after calling off a historic summit with North Korea, the US President wrote," we will soon see where it will lead". Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy wins floor test in Karnataka Assembly Karnataka Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy on Friday won the trust vote in the Karnataka assembly shortly after he moved the moved the motion of confidence. Hotel brawl incident: Army orders court of inquiry against Major Gogoi The Indian Army on Friday ordered a court of inquiry against Major Nitin Leetul Gogoi who was briefly detained by police in Srinagar after an altercation when he was allegedly trying to enter a hotel with an 18-year-old woman. CBSE class 12 results to be declared tomorrow The results of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBSE) class 12 board exams will be declared tomorrow (May 26). Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina seeks India's help in Rohingya crisis Speaking at the convocation ceremony in West Bengal, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina sought help from PM Modi in the Rohingya crisis.She asked India&nbspto intervene and ask Myanmar to take back Rohingyas.

News brief: Big stories of the day

<p>The Indian Army on Friday ordered a court of inquiry against Major Nitin Leetul Gogoi who was briefly detained by police in Srinagar after an altercation when he was allegedly trying to enter a hotel with an 18-year-old woman.</p>

<p>The Army officials said that the future course of action would be taken after completion of the investigation.</p>

<p>Major Gogoi was briefly detained by police in Srinagar following the altercation on May 23.</p>

<p>Earlier in the day, Army Chief Bipin Rawat said exemplary punishment would be given to Major Gogoi if he was found guilty of "any offence".<br />
&nbsp<br />
"If any officer of the Indian army is found guilty of any offence, we will take strictest possible action," the army chief told reporters at Pahalgham while on a visit to the Army Goodwill School.&nbsp</p>

<p>"If Major Gogoi has done something wrong, I assure you that he will be awarded punishment at the earliest...The punishment will set an example," the army chief said.</p>

<p>The Jammu and Kashmir Police has initiated an inquiry into the incident involving Gogoi, who found himself at the centre of a storm last year following his decision to tie a civilian to the bonnet of his vehicle in Kashmir.<br />
&nbsp</p>


Major Gogoi who was briefly detained by police in Srinagar on May 23 after an altercation when he was allegedly trying to enter a hotel with an 18-year-old woman

The Indian Army on Friday ordered a court of inquiry against Major Nitin Leetul Gogoi who was briefly detained by police in Srinagar after an altercation when he was allegedly trying to enter a hotel with an 18-year-old woman. The Army officials said that the future course of action would be taken after completion of the investigation. Major Gogoi was briefly detained by police in Srinagar following the altercation on May 23. Earlier in the day, Army Chief Bipin Rawat said exemplary punishment would be given to Major Gogoi if he was found guilty of "any offence". "If any officer of the Indian army is found guilty of any offence, we will take strictest possible action," the army chief told reporters at Pahalgham while on a visit to the Army Goodwill School. "If Major Gogoi has done something wrong, I assure you that he will be awarded punishment at the earliest...The punishment will set an example," the army chief said. The Jammu and Kashmir Police has initiated an inquiry into the incident involving Gogoi, who found himself at the centre of a storm last year following his decision to tie a civilian to the bonnet of his vehicle in Kashmir.

Hotel brawl incident: Army orders court of inquiry against Major Gogoi

<p>It is only recently that I noticed that primetime debates on TV have now become &#39;superprimetime&#39;. There is more frothing and foaming, more hot air and histrionics. And what better topic for such super-frothing than Kashmir (and by extension &#39;Pakistani-hand&#39;, &#39;proxy war&#39;)! Also, I hear now, watching this spectacle has become a habit for many Kashmiris as they watch Timesnow&#39;s &quot;The Newshour&quot; at dinner time.</p>

<p>In one such superprimetime show, something interesting happened. News was pouring in that Major Gogoi had been hailed as a hero by the Army, and Defence Minister Jaitley defended and lauded the army, placing it above the scrutiny of Parliament. Reacting to this, the Kashmiri speaker on the show says, &#39;you have done countless atrocities on us and hence Kashmiris do not expect any justice from you. Nor did they expect anything good from Major Gogoi&#39;.</p>

<p>The anchor asks: &#39;who is this &#39;you&#39;, are you not an Indian? Tell us, do you hold an Indian passport or not?&#39;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The anchor asks: &#39;who is this &#39;you&#39;, are you not an Indian? Tell us, do you hold an Indian passport or not?&#39;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The anchor asks: 'who is this 'you', are you not an Indian? Tell us, do you hold an Indian passport or not?'

" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>For some reason, this question about passport seems to backfoot the two Kashmiris as they now look somewhat frazzled. The anchor hollers again: &#39;Holding an Indian passport, how can you attack this country?&#39; The pronouncement is made: &#39;You are hypocritical. You Kashmiris want the benefits of being an Indian, you take money and resources, but you attack India - such a hypocrite.&#39;</p>

<p>The two Kashmiri panelists persist in outlining the horrors committed by the Indian army, but then the anchor, thinking she has found the best way to corner these Kashmiris, repeats the same question: &#39;Tell us, you are an Indian or not? Which passport do you carry?&#39;</p>

<p>But then this time, things turn around.</p>

<p>To start with, the &#39;are you Indian?&#39; did not go unanswered. The response was: &#39;I am a Kashmiri&#39;. No reference to India, or &lsquo;Indian&rsquo;. Then when needled further: &#39;I am a Kashmiri, first and last&#39;. Then, &#39;I am a proud Kashmiri, first and last&#39;. This is when something interesting happened.</p>

<p>Instead of an answer, the Kashmiri panelist threw a counter-question: &#39;are you a gau rakshak?&#39; He turned the screw further: &#39;you tell me first, are you a gau rakshak, and then I will reply to you if I am an Indian.&#39; This was a major turning point in the debate.</p>

<p>The other panelists soon started fumbling, and the Kashmiri panelists then walked out of the debate. The anchor kept repeating, &#39;this debate is not about gau rakshaks, please let us not trivialise the debate - it is about Major Gogoi...&#39;</p>

<p>That one question changed everything.</p>

<p>What happened was that the claim of an expansive Indian citizenship or identity which has been benevolently extended to the &#39;hypocritical&#39;, &#39;ungrateful&#39; Kashmiris fell flat. The Kashmiri was able to force out the truth of the &#39;Indian First&#39; rhetoric. The only &#39;true Indian&#39; is the gau rakshak. So, first the Indian must denounce gau rakshaks, say you are not one of them, then we can perhaps talk. Otherwise, if the Indian is a gau rakshak, then every Kashmiri might very well be a stone-pelter.</p>

<p>So I, the Kashmiri, might be holding the Indian passport, but that is my tragedy, my condition, as I am being forced to fit into a citizenship modeled on the ethos and values of a gau rakshak - notwithstanding your secular, democratic constitution and suchlike tall declarations by Modi and whoever is in power. Hence I better remain what you accuse me of - a stone pelter.</p>

<p>India&#39;s pride of being a democracy, unlike &#39;sectarian Pakistan&#39; which has &#39;no place for minorities&#39;, stood undermined. That question implies an equivalence between Pakistan and India - the last thing the Indian nationalist wants. The nationalist Indian wants to be seen upholding the supposedly non-sectarian notion of &#39;we are Indians first&#39; while he secretly nurtures and cultivates the gau rakshak.</p>

<p>But what if the Indian is not a gau rakshak? Does Kashmir then want to be part of secular India?</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Gandhi exclaimed: &#39;Sir Akbar is wrong. I will ask them to shoot me first, before one Naga is shot!&#39;&quot;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Gandhi exclaimed: 'Sir Akbar is wrong. I will ask them to shoot me first, before one Naga is shot!'" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>And here we can only recall Mahatma Gandhi&#39;s promise to the Nagas. Phizo, the Naga leader, tells us that Gandhi told him in 1947 that the Nagas are totally free not to be part of India. Gandhi said, &quot;If you do not wish to join the union of India, nobody will force you to do that. When the Naga delegates pointed out that the Governor, Sir Akbar Hydari was threatening to do exactly that, Gandhi exclaimed: &#39;Sir Akbar is wrong. I will ask them to shoot me first, before one Naga is shot!&#39;&quot;</p>

<p>Gandhi&#39;s promise not only remained unfulfilled, but his last sentence uncannily became a prediction of what was to come: the killing of Gandhi himself and (then) of Nagas, Kashmiris, and also of rebel peasants of Telangana (1948-50) by the newly independent secular democratic Indian republic under Nehru. The saga continues, from Nehru to Modi. Do we see a Congresss-BJP continuum at this level?&nbsp;</p>

<p>Do we see the secular nationalist and communal nationalist sharing something like the same &lsquo;deep state&rsquo; when it comes to separatist movements? UAPA, POTA, TADA, AFSPA are like the continuing inner heartbeat of Indian democracy, connecting all political parties and the respective governments in one common thread.</p>

<p>No matter what the ideological orientation of the regime, allowing the creation of another nation-state is an absolute no-no. This is common to India and Pakistan, as well as to Spain (the Basque), Russia&rsquo;s attitude towards Chechnya, or Turkey&rsquo;s towards Kurdistan today. If at all new nation-states are formed, like in the case of ex-Yugoslavia, the process seems inseparable from Balkanisation, another horror.</p>

<p>Perhaps the formation of East Timor in 1999 or Kosovo in 2008 was an exception. What this shows is those different variations of the &#39;gau rakshak model&#39;, or of the same sadness-inducing deep state across regimes seem to dominate almost every country. The world cries like a river.</p>


No matter what the ideological orientation of the regime, allowing the creation of another nation-state is an absolute no-no.

It is only recently that I noticed that primetime debates on TV have now become 'superprimetime'. There is more frothing and foaming, more hot air and histrionics. And what better topic for such super-frothing than Kashmir (and by extension 'Pakistani-hand', 'proxy war')! Also, I hear now, watching this spectacle has become a habit for many Kashmiris as they watch Timesnow's "The Newshour" at dinner time. In one such superprimetime show, something interesting happened. News was pouring in that Major Gogoi had been hailed as a hero by the Army, and Defence Minister Jaitley defended and lauded the army, placing it above the scrutiny of Parliament. Reacting to this, the Kashmiri speaker on the show says, 'you have done countless atrocities on us and hence Kashmiris do not expect any justice from you. Nor did they expect anything good from Major Gogoi'. The anchor asks: 'who is this 'you', are you not an Indian? Tell us, do you hold an Indian passport or not?' The anchor asks: 'who is this 'you', are you not an Indian? Tell us, do you hold an Indian passport or not?' × For some reason, this question about passport seems to backfoot the two Kashmiris as they now look somewhat frazzled. The anchor hollers again: 'Holding an Indian passport, how can you attack this country?' The pronouncement is made: 'You are hypocritical. You Kashmiris want the benefits of being an Indian, you take money and resources, but you attack India - such a hypocrite.' The two Kashmiri panelists persist in outlining the horrors committed by the Indian army, but then the anchor, thinking she has found the best way to corner these Kashmiris, repeats the same question: 'Tell us, you are an Indian or not? Which passport do you carry?' But then this time, things turn around. To start with, the 'are you Indian?' did not go unanswered. The response was: 'I am a Kashmiri'. No reference to India, or ‘Indian’. Then when needled further: 'I am a Kashmiri, first and last'. Then, 'I am a proud Kashmiri, first and last'. This is when something interesting happened. Instead of an answer, the Kashmiri panelist threw a counter-question: 'are you a gau rakshak?' He turned the screw further: 'you tell me first, are you a gau rakshak, and then I will reply to you if I am an Indian.' This was a major turning point in the debate. The other panelists soon started fumbling, and the Kashmiri panelists then walked out of the debate. The anchor kept repeating, 'this debate is not about gau rakshaks, please let us not trivialise the debate - it is about Major Gogoi...' That one question changed everything. What happened was that the claim of an expansive Indian citizenship or identity which has been benevolently extended to the 'hypocritical', 'ungrateful' Kashmiris fell flat. The Kashmiri was able to force out the truth of the 'Indian First' rhetoric. The only 'true Indian' is the gau rakshak. So, first the Indian must denounce gau rakshaks, say you are not one of them, then we can perhaps talk. Otherwise, if the Indian is a gau rakshak, then every Kashmiri might very well be a stone-pelter. So I, the Kashmiri, might be holding the Indian passport, but that is my tragedy, my condition, as I am being forced to fit into a citizenship modeled on the ethos and values of a gau rakshak - notwithstanding your secular, democratic constitution and suchlike tall declarations by Modi and whoever is in power. Hence I better remain what you accuse me of - a stone pelter. India's pride of being a democracy, unlike 'sectarian Pakistan' which has 'no place for minorities', stood undermined. That question implies an equivalence between Pakistan and India - the last thing the Indian nationalist wants. The nationalist Indian wants to be seen upholding the supposedly non-sectarian notion of 'we are Indians first' while he secretly nurtures and cultivates the gau rakshak. But what if the Indian is not a gau rakshak? Does Kashmir then want to be part of secular India? Gandhi exclaimed: 'Sir Akbar is wrong. I will ask them to shoot me first, before one Naga is shot!'" × And here we can only recall Mahatma Gandhi's promise to the Nagas. Phizo, the Naga leader, tells us that Gandhi told him in 1947 that the Nagas are totally free not to be part of India. Gandhi said, "If you do not wish to join the union of India, nobody will force you to do that. When the Naga delegates pointed out that the Governor, Sir Akbar Hydari was threatening to do exactly that, Gandhi exclaimed: 'Sir Akbar is wrong. I will ask them to shoot me first, before one Naga is shot!'" Gandhi's promise not only remained unfulfilled, but his last sentence uncannily became a prediction of what was to come: the killing of Gandhi himself and (then) of Nagas, Kashmiris, and also of rebel peasants of Telangana (1948-50) by the newly independent secular democratic Indian republic under Nehru. The saga continues, from Nehru to Modi. Do we see a Congresss-BJP continuum at this level? Do we see the secular nationalist and communal nationalist sharing something like the same ‘deep state’ when it comes to separatist movements? UAPA, POTA, TADA, AFSPA are like the continuing inner heartbeat of Indian democracy, connecting all political parties and the respective governments in one common thread. No matter what the ideological orientation of the regime, allowing the creation of another nation-state is an absolute no-no. This is common to India and Pakistan, as well as to Spain (the Basque), Russia’s attitude towards Chechnya, or Turkey’s towards Kurdistan today. If at all new nation-states are formed, like in the case of ex-Yugoslavia, the process seems inseparable from Balkanisation, another horror. Perhaps the formation of East Timor in 1999 or Kosovo in 2008 was an exception. What this shows is those different variations of the 'gau rakshak model', or of the same sadness-inducing deep state across regimes seem to dominate almost every country. The world cries like a river.

The challenges of being an Indian

<p>When Major Leetul Gogoi tied alleged stone pelter, Farooq Ahmed Dar, on the bonnet of his jeep and raced through a hostile stone pelting mob with his Quick Reaction Team (QRT), he created a history of sorts. The facts of the case are too well known to bear repetition. I was loathed to touch the subject because like most I believed that Major Gogol&rsquo;s action while innovative and successful was questionable, but in good faith, and therefore acceptable, given that no lives were lost. However, persistent criticism in the media forced me to give the issue more than a cursory look, and since enough time has elapsed, one can look at the aspect of &ldquo;human shield&rdquo; that has been at the epicentre of all media debate a bit more dispassionately and realistically.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>As is to be expected, protagonists from opposing sides hold vehemently divergent views on the issue, depending on which side their loyalties lie or the political advantages that accrue. Nonetheless, there can be little doubt that by his unconventional action he averted a crisis. Gogoi&#39;s inaction could have resulted either in the mob torching the polling booth, and in all probability murdering or grievously injuring the polling staff, which was only doing its duty, or, in the killing of protesters by the QRT in their own self-defense. It goes without saying that no sane individual would have wished for either of these outcomes as both scenarios would have resulted in a loss of precious lives. Moreover, the repercussions of that would have further engulfed the Valley in a more rabid cycle of violence. In that sense, the nation, and especially those most impacted, owes the officer a debt of gratitude for his innovative thinking and decisive action, which the Indian government and the Army have done well to recognise.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Yet his actions, as well as the award of a Commendation by the Army Chief, have not gone down well with a cross- section of luminaries, mainly politicians, media personalities, human rights activists and even a sprinkling of senior military veterans. Some have accused the officer of infringement of the Geneva Convention and of disparagement of the rule of law. Others, especially military veterans, have accused him of damaging the Indian Army&rsquo;s ethos and traditions, apart from breaking applicable rules and regulations.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Deliberately using civilians to shield military operations is contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Deliberately using civilians to shield military operations is contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>While views of such senior veterans are worthy of respect, even if they are contrarian, what is truly distressing is the airing of such views by media personalities, as was done by Mr. Karan Thapar, on the basis of having been an &ldquo;army brat&rdquo;. His column &ldquo;Not the Indian Army I know&rdquo;, published in a leading newspaper, suggests that the act was immoral and a clear violation of human rights, though readily acceptable in war. He further expresses concern over the actions of the Army Chief in commending the officer and suggests that he has let down the Army.</p>

<p>As I shall subsequently show, Mr. Thapar is wrong on both counts, of immorality and abuse of human rights, but that apart, his passing judgment on the impact the action will have on the Army is a little bit thick, to say the least. While comparisons are odious and best avoided, he would do well to refresh his memory by glancing through Shiv Kunal Verma&rsquo;s brilliant expose &ldquo;1962: The War that Wasn&rsquo;t&rdquo;, to get a true understanding of the depths to which our Army had plunged thanks to the actions and inactions of the then Chief. The idiom that people who live in glass houses shouldn&rsquo;t throw stones is worth following.</p>

<p>As is obvious from much of the criticism of the action, most of us instinctively find the use of &ldquo;human shields&rdquo; by the military repugnant, as we should. Other than a violation of human rights, use of &ldquo;human shields&rdquo;&nbsp;clearly reflects cowardice, an unworthy and wholly unacceptable trait within the military. It is for this very reason that the International Criminal Court treats such actions as war crimes, not just in internal armed conflicts but also international conflicts as well. Thus, in the present instance, given the seriousness of the charge, it was incumbent on our supposedly &ldquo;responsible&ldquo; media to have first clarified whether this case fell within the ambit of what the ICC defines as an act of using &ldquo;Human Shields&rdquo;, before going to town and creating a controversy. Sadly, as we shall see our press has seriously failed us on this occasion and needs to be taken to task.</p>

<p>Article 8 Paragraph 2 (b) under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines it in the context of international armed conflict as &ldquo;utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations&rdquo; constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.&rdquo; In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, paragraph 2(c) and (e) clarify the issue and state in part that &ldquo;serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause.&rdquo; This includes the taking of hostages which is equated to the use of human shields which is prohibited by Additional Protocol II and by customary international law. In addition, deliberately using civilians to shield military operations is contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>From a simple reading of Article 8 of the Rome Statute one would not be wrong in concluding that stone- pelters are clearly not an &ldquo;armed group&rdquo; and the fact that &ldquo;riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence&rdquo;, what they were indulging in, cannot by any means be termed as an &ldquo;armed conflict not of an international character&rdquo;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=From a simple reading of Article 8 of the Rome Statute one would not be wrong in concluding that stone- pelters are clearly not an ?armed group? and the fact that ?riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence?, what they were indulging in, cannot by any means be termed as an ?armed conflict not of an international character?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In essence, therefore, using civilians as &ldquo;human shields&rdquo; is covered in the case of international armed conflicts and armed conflicts not of an international character. However, and this is important, Article 8 Paragraph 2(d) specifically goes on to state that &ldquo;Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts, not of an international character and, thus, does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.&rdquo; Further clarification of what is seen as an armed conflict not of an international character is provided in Paragraph 2(f) of the Article which states in part that &ldquo;It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.&rdquo; Finally, Paragraph 3 of Statute makes clear that &ldquo;Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.&rdquo;</p>

<p>From a simple reading of Article 8 of the Rome Statute one would not be wrong in concluding that stone-pelters are clearly not an &ldquo;armed group&rdquo; and the fact that &ldquo;riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence&rdquo;, what they were indulging in, cannot by any means be termed as an &ldquo;armed conflict not of an international character&rdquo;. Therefore, it stands to reason that the actions of Major Gogoi do not fall under the category of being classified as the use of &ldquo;Human Shields&rdquo; under international law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Furthermore, when looked at in the context of the Indian Penal Code, the Army Act and various other rules and regulations applicable while providing &ldquo;Aid to Civil Authorities&rdquo; it is quite evident that the officer followed the four guiding principles laid down; that of necessity, minimum force, impartiality and good faith. Therefore, for the press to have classified his action as one of using a &ldquo;human shield&rdquo; is grossly incorrect and he is owed more than an apology.</p>

<p>One can also question the motivation of the local police to have lodged a FIR against the officer, especially given the fact that security of the polling staff, which included local policemen, was its own responsibility in which it had failed miserably. Moreover, one can also legitimately ask the question of the local police as to whether they had also lodged a FIR against those involved in the stone-pelting? Since law and order is a state subject, and with the Police completely subjugated to the wishes of the political establishment, it is highly unlikely that such a FIR would have been lodged, given the fact that the senior partner in the ruling coalition, the PDP, finds itself between a rock and a very hard place!</p>

<p>Finally, from this controversy, one could draw the deduction that the actions taken by Major Gogoi against stone pelters to avoid casualties are a legitimate tactic that can be refined and emulated. It can and must be used to neutralise the tactics adopted by &ldquo;armed groups&rdquo; who use stone pelters to create impediments for Security Forces tasked to &ldquo;maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State &rdquo;. It would certainly obviate the use of &ldquo;Pellet Guns&rdquo; which have gained notoriety over the past few years and probably force the militant groups to change tactics as well.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


According to Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, actions of Major Gogoi cannot be classified as the use of ?Human Shields?.

When Major Leetul Gogoi tied alleged stone pelter, Farooq Ahmed Dar, on the bonnet of his jeep and raced through a hostile stone pelting mob with his Quick Reaction Team (QRT), he created a history of sorts. The facts of the case are too well known to bear repetition. I was loathed to touch the subject because like most I believed that Major Gogol’s action while innovative and successful was questionable, but in good faith, and therefore acceptable, given that no lives were lost. However, persistent criticism in the media forced me to give the issue more than a cursory look, and since enough time has elapsed, one can look at the aspect of “human shield” that has been at the epicentre of all media debate a bit more dispassionately and realistically. As is to be expected, protagonists from opposing sides hold vehemently divergent views on the issue, depending on which side their loyalties lie or the political advantages that accrue. Nonetheless, there can be little doubt that by his unconventional action he averted a crisis. Gogoi's inaction could have resulted either in the mob torching the polling booth, and in all probability murdering or grievously injuring the polling staff, which was only doing its duty, or, in the killing of protesters by the QRT in their own self-defense. It goes without saying that no sane individual would have wished for either of these outcomes as both scenarios would have resulted in a loss of precious lives. Moreover, the repercussions of that would have further engulfed the Valley in a more rabid cycle of violence. In that sense, the nation, and especially those most impacted, owes the officer a debt of gratitude for his innovative thinking and decisive action, which the Indian government and the Army have done well to recognise. Yet his actions, as well as the award of a Commendation by the Army Chief, have not gone down well with a cross- section of luminaries, mainly politicians, media personalities, human rights activists and even a sprinkling of senior military veterans. Some have accused the officer of infringement of the Geneva Convention and of disparagement of the rule of law. Others, especially military veterans, have accused him of damaging the Indian Army’s ethos and traditions, apart from breaking applicable rules and regulations. Deliberately using civilians to shield military operations is contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives × While views of such senior veterans are worthy of respect, even if they are contrarian, what is truly distressing is the airing of such views by media personalities, as was done by Mr. Karan Thapar, on the basis of having been an “army brat”. His column “Not the Indian Army I know”, published in a leading newspaper, suggests that the act was immoral and a clear violation of human rights, though readily acceptable in war. He further expresses concern over the actions of the Army Chief in commending the officer and suggests that he has let down the Army. As I shall subsequently show, Mr. Thapar is wrong on both counts, of immorality and abuse of human rights, but that apart, his passing judgment on the impact the action will have on the Army is a little bit thick, to say the least. While comparisons are odious and best avoided, he would do well to refresh his memory by glancing through Shiv Kunal Verma’s brilliant expose “1962: The War that Wasn’t”, to get a true understanding of the depths to which our Army had plunged thanks to the actions and inactions of the then Chief. The idiom that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones is worth following. As is obvious from much of the criticism of the action, most of us instinctively find the use of “human shields” by the military repugnant, as we should. Other than a violation of human rights, use of “human shields” clearly reflects cowardice, an unworthy and wholly unacceptable trait within the military. It is for this very reason that the International Criminal Court treats such actions as war crimes, not just in internal armed conflicts but also international conflicts as well. Thus, in the present instance, given the seriousness of the charge, it was incumbent on our supposedly “responsible“ media to have first clarified whether this case fell within the ambit of what the ICC defines as an act of using “Human Shields”, before going to town and creating a controversy. Sadly, as we shall see our press has seriously failed us on this occasion and needs to be taken to task. Article 8 Paragraph 2 (b) under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines it in the context of international armed conflict as “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.” In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, paragraph 2(c) and (e) clarify the issue and state in part that “serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause.” This includes the taking of hostages which is equated to the use of human shields which is prohibited by Additional Protocol II and by customary international law. In addition, deliberately using civilians to shield military operations is contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives. From a simple reading of Article 8 of the Rome Statute one would not be wrong in concluding that stone- pelters are clearly not an “armed group” and the fact that “riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence”, what they were indulging in, cannot by any means be termed as an “armed conflict not of an international character” × In essence, therefore, using civilians as “human shields” is covered in the case of international armed conflicts and armed conflicts not of an international character. However, and this is important, Article 8 Paragraph 2(d) specifically goes on to state that “Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts, not of an international character and, thus, does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.” Further clarification of what is seen as an armed conflict not of an international character is provided in Paragraph 2(f) of the Article which states in part that “It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.” Finally, Paragraph 3 of Statute makes clear that “Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.” From a simple reading of Article 8 of the Rome Statute one would not be wrong in concluding that stone-pelters are clearly not an “armed group” and the fact that “riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence”, what they were indulging in, cannot by any means be termed as an “armed conflict not of an international character”. Therefore, it stands to reason that the actions of Major Gogoi do not fall under the category of being classified as the use of “Human Shields” under international law. Furthermore, when looked at in the context of the Indian Penal Code, the Army Act and various other rules and regulations applicable while providing “Aid to Civil Authorities” it is quite evident that the officer followed the four guiding principles laid down; that of necessity, minimum force, impartiality and good faith. Therefore, for the press to have classified his action as one of using a “human shield” is grossly incorrect and he is owed more than an apology. One can also question the motivation of the local police to have lodged a FIR against the officer, especially given the fact that security of the polling staff, which included local policemen, was its own responsibility in which it had failed miserably. Moreover, one can also legitimately ask the question of the local police as to whether they had also lodged a FIR against those involved in the stone-pelting? Since law and order is a state subject, and with the Police completely subjugated to the wishes of the political establishment, it is highly unlikely that such a FIR would have been lodged, given the fact that the senior partner in the ruling coalition, the PDP, finds itself between a rock and a very hard place! Finally, from this controversy, one could draw the deduction that the actions taken by Major Gogoi against stone pelters to avoid casualties are a legitimate tactic that can be refined and emulated. It can and must be used to neutralise the tactics adopted by “armed groups” who use stone pelters to create impediments for Security Forces tasked to “maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State ”. It would certainly obviate the use of “Pellet Guns” which have gained notoriety over the past few years and probably force the militant groups to change tactics as well.

Did Major Gogoi stop violence or commit war crime in Kashmir?

<p>Army veterans today appeared to be divided over a commendation card which was awarded to Major Leetul Gogoi, who had tied a man to a jeep in Kashmir purportedly as a shield against stone pelters.</p>

<p>Lieutenant general (retd) H S Panag, former GOC-in-C, Northern Command, criticised the move saying Gogoi&#39;s action was unbecoming of the traditions followed by the Indian Army.</p>

<p>&quot;IA (Indian Army) traditions, ethos, rules &amp; regs swept away by the &#39;mood of the nation&#39;! I stand by my views even if I am the last man standing!&quot; Panag tweeted.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>IA (Indian Army) traditions, ethos, rules &amp; regs swept away by the &#39;mood of the nation&#39;! I stand by my views even if I am the last man standing!&#39; Lt Gen HS Panag tweeted</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=IA (Indian Army) traditions, ethos, rules &amp; regs swept away by the 'mood of the nation'! I stand by my views even if I am the last man standing!' Lt Gen HS Panag tweeted" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Gogoi was on Monday honoured with army chief&#39;s commendation card for his &quot;sustained efforts in counter- insurgency operations&quot;.</p>

<p>Major general (retd) Ramesh Chopra came out in support of Gogoi.</p>

<p>&quot;With his innovative thinking, he saved lives of people and that has to be appreciated. I give him full marks for his presence of mind,&quot; Chopra said.</p>

<p>Col Anil Kaul (retd), who served in the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka, said Gogoi deserved more than a commendation card because of his &quot;out of the box thinking&quot;.</p>

<p>&quot;He saved lives of people without even firing a bullet despite being attacked by stone pelters. His act should be applauded and he should be given a Shaurya Chakra,&quot; Kaul said.</p>

<p>Breaking his silence on Tuesday Gogoi said about 1200 stone- pelters had surrounded a small group of security personnel at a polling booth in Utligam village of Budgam district on&nbsp;April 9.</p>

<p>He claimed that if he had ordered firing, there could have been at least 12 casualties.</p>

<p>The mob, which included women and children, was threatening to set ablaze the polling booth, he claimed.</p>

<p>Amidst the mob, he claimed he saw a man who appeared to be the &quot;ring leader&quot; as he was &quot;instigating&quot; the stone-pelters at Utlgam on the day of bypoll to Srinagar Lok Sabha constituency.</p>

<p>(PTI)</p>


Major Leetul Gogoi had tied a Kashmiri man to the front of a jeep, purportedly as a shield against stone pelters

Army veterans today appeared to be divided over a commendation card which was awarded to Major Leetul Gogoi, who had tied a man to a jeep in Kashmir purportedly as a shield against stone pelters. Lieutenant general (retd) H S Panag, former GOC-in-C, Northern Command, criticised the move saying Gogoi's action was unbecoming of the traditions followed by the Indian Army. "IA (Indian Army) traditions, ethos, rules & regs swept away by the 'mood of the nation'! I stand by my views even if I am the last man standing!" Panag tweeted. IA (Indian Army) traditions, ethos, rules & regs swept away by the 'mood of the nation'! I stand by my views even if I am the last man standing!' Lt Gen HS Panag tweeted × Gogoi was on Monday honoured with army chief's commendation card for his "sustained efforts in counter- insurgency operations". Major general (retd) Ramesh Chopra came out in support of Gogoi. "With his innovative thinking, he saved lives of people and that has to be appreciated. I give him full marks for his presence of mind," Chopra said. Col Anil Kaul (retd), who served in the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka, said Gogoi deserved more than a commendation card because of his "out of the box thinking". "He saved lives of people without even firing a bullet despite being attacked by stone pelters. His act should be applauded and he should be given a Shaurya Chakra," Kaul said. Breaking his silence on Tuesday Gogoi said about 1200 stone- pelters had surrounded a small group of security personnel at a polling booth in Utligam village of Budgam district on April 9. He claimed that if he had ordered firing, there could have been at least 12 casualties. The mob, which included women and children, was threatening to set ablaze the polling booth, he claimed. Amidst the mob, he claimed he saw a man who appeared to be the "ring leader" as he was "instigating" the stone-pelters at Utlgam on the day of bypoll to Srinagar Lok Sabha constituency. (PTI)

Indian Army veterans divided over commendation given to Major Gogoi

<p>Investigations into the circumstances that led a major to tie a man to his jeep as a human shield against stone-pelters last month would continue regardless of the officer being awarded by the army, the Jammu and Kashmir Police clarified today.</p>

<p>The first information report (FIR) had not been quashed, Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kashmir, Munir Khan, told reporters in Sopore, 52 kilometres&nbsp;from here.</p>

<p>&quot;The investigation will be done and its result will be shared,&quot; Khan said. Once an FIR is lodged, the investigation has to be completed. FIR means the beginning of investigation, he added.</p>

<p>&quot;Whatever comes out in the investigation is a separate matter, but investigation will take place and it will be seen what is right and what is wrong,&quot; he said.</p>

<p>Major Leetul Gogoi, who had tied a man to his jeep during polling in the Srinagar Lok Sabha by-election on April 9, was honoured yesterday with the Army Chief&#39;s Commendation Card for his sustained efforts in counter-insurgency operations.</p>

<p>The video showing the man, identified as Farooq Ahmad Dar, being used as a human shield had triggered public outrage, prompting the army to institute a probe to look into the circumstances that led Gogoi to tie him to his jeep.</p>

<p>The state police had also registered a case into the incident.</p>

<p>(PTI)</p>


Major Gogoi was awarded by the army for his work in counter-insurgency operations, but the probe against him will continue

Investigations into the circumstances that led a major to tie a man to his jeep as a human shield against stone-pelters last month would continue regardless of the officer being awarded by the army, the Jammu and Kashmir Police clarified today. The first information report (FIR) had not been quashed, Inspector General of Police (IGP), Kashmir, Munir Khan, told reporters in Sopore, 52 kilometres from here. "The investigation will be done and its result will be shared," Khan said. Once an FIR is lodged, the investigation has to be completed. FIR means the beginning of investigation, he added. "Whatever comes out in the investigation is a separate matter, but investigation will take place and it will be seen what is right and what is wrong," he said. Major Leetul Gogoi, who had tied a man to his jeep during polling in the Srinagar Lok Sabha by-election on April 9, was honoured yesterday with the Army Chief's Commendation Card for his sustained efforts in counter-insurgency operations. The video showing the man, identified as Farooq Ahmad Dar, being used as a human shield had triggered public outrage, prompting the army to institute a probe to look into the circumstances that led Gogoi to tie him to his jeep. The state police had also registered a case into the incident. (PTI)

Probe against major in human shield case to continue: J&K Police

<p>Major Leetul Gogoi, who had tied a man to a jeep in Kashmir purportedly as a shield against stone pelters, has been awarded by the Army for his &#39;sustained efforts&#39; in counter-insurgency operations.</p>

<p>The Army Chief&#39;s &#39;Commendation Card&#39; for Major Gogoi is seen as an indication that he is unlikely to be implicated for the incident by a Court of Inquiry, which the Army maintains is still going on.</p>

<p>&quot;Major Gogoi has been awarded Chief of Army Staff&#39;s Commendation Card for sustained efforts in counter-insurgency operations,&quot; Army spokesperson Colonel Aman Anand said.</p>

<p>Sources said Major Gogoi was given the award during General Rawat&#39;s visit to Jammu and Kashmir last week.</p>

<p>The Army Chief&#39;s &#39;Commendation Card&#39; is considered a prestigious award and is given for distinguished services and devotion to duties.</p>

<p>A video, showing the man tied to the army vehicle during polling in the Srinagar Lok Sabha by-election on April 9, had triggered a public outcry, prompting the Army to institute a probe.</p>

<p>A Court of Inquiry was asked to look into the circumstance that prompted Major Gogoi to tie the Kashmiri youth to the jeep&#39;s bonnet as a &quot;human shield&quot;.<br />
<br />
(PTI)</p>

<p><br />
&nbsp;</p>


Major Gogoi was awarded with a 'Commendation Card' for sustained efforts during counter-insurgency operations

Major Leetul Gogoi, who had tied a man to a jeep in Kashmir purportedly as a shield against stone pelters, has been awarded by the Army for his 'sustained efforts' in counter-insurgency operations. The Army Chief's 'Commendation Card' for Major Gogoi is seen as an indication that he is unlikely to be implicated for the incident by a Court of Inquiry, which the Army maintains is still going on. "Major Gogoi has been awarded Chief of Army Staff's Commendation Card for sustained efforts in counter-insurgency operations," Army spokesperson Colonel Aman Anand said. Sources said Major Gogoi was given the award during General Rawat's visit to Jammu and Kashmir last week. The Army Chief's 'Commendation Card' is considered a prestigious award and is given for distinguished services and devotion to duties. A video, showing the man tied to the army vehicle during polling in the Srinagar Lok Sabha by-election on April 9, had triggered a public outcry, prompting the Army to institute a probe. A Court of Inquiry was asked to look into the circumstance that prompted Major Gogoi to tie the Kashmiri youth to the jeep's bonnet as a "human shield". (PTI)

Indian Army awards officer who tied man to jeep in Kashmir

major-gogoi

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

major gogoi