Kashmir human shield

Srinagar Encounter: Eyewitnesses Say Civilians Were Used as ‘Human Shields’; Probe Demanded

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said it was the “responsibility of security forces to keep civilians from harm during an armed operation, not to place them in harm’s way.”

Srinagar: Human Rights Watch (HRW), the international rights advocacy group headquartered in the US, has sought a “credible and independent” probe into the allegations that a civilian was used as a human shield during a shootout in Srinagar’s Hyderpora locality.

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of HRW, said it was the “responsibility of security forces to keep civilians from harm during an armed operation, not to place them in harm’s way.”

“The authorities should immediately order a transparent, credible and independent investigation into this incident,” Meenakshi told The Wire.

The killing of businessman Altaf Ahmad Bhat, father of three minor children, in a controversial shootout that left four people dead in Srinagar, has sparked allegations that he was used as a human shield by security forces.

In a conflict situation, the Geneva Conventions, to which India is a signatory, forbid the use of human shields who can be either civilians or prisoners of war. A human shield is used by any side involved in a conflict in a potentially life-threatening situation to achieve their own military objectives.

According to Doctors Without Borders (MSF), a French non-profit which works in conflict zones, including Kashmir, the use of civilians “to shield military objectives or operations” is a violation of international humanitarian laws.

“Such acts are clearly established as war crimes under international humanitarian law. Many categories of persons are specifically protected by humanitarian law, such as civilians, the wounded and sick, prisoners of war, and medical personnel,” the MSF notes.

Also Read: As Civilian Victims’ Families Contest Official Version, J&K Police SIT to Probe Encounter

Eyewitnesses accounts

Eyewitnesses and family members who spoke with The Wire said a search team of security forces led by the J&K police asked Altaf, owner of the shopping complex in Srinagar’s Hyderpora locality where the shootout took place, to accompany them when they started the anti-militancy operation.

A statement issued by the J&K police also admitted that Altaf was taken along by the security forces. It said the anti-militancy operation was launched along with the Army’s 2 Rashtriya Rifles and the CRPF following “specific police inputs” about the “presence of terrorists” in the shopping complex.

“If security forces knew there were militants inside the building, why did they ask my brother to accompany them? They deliberately put him in harm’s way. He was used as a human shield,” Altaf’s brother, Abdul Majid Bhat, told The Wire, dismissing rumours that his brother was linked to militancy.

Majid’s claim has been corroborated by several eyewitnesses who saw the happenings at the shopping complex when the search unit started the operation on Monday at around 5:30 pm.

Two eyewitnesses who spoke with The Wire on the condition of anonymity, disclosed that when the search unit arrived, counterinsurgency forces in the civvies were already deployed in the area, “They asked the traders to down their shutters while other forces laid a cordon around the complex,” said an eyewitness.

Security forces then assembled the traders and their workers in a two-wheeler showroom housed in the shopping complex and seized their mobile phones. As the cordon was tightened, the search unit attempted their first entry into the complex.

A member of the security forces during an encounter with militants at Hyderpora, in Srinagar, November 15, 2021. Photo: PTI /S. Irfan

“Altaf was closing his shop when they (jawans) asked him to accompany them while they searched the shopping complex. He obliged without any resistance,” said the eyewitness, who didn’t want to be named for the fear of reprisal by security forces.

After some time, the eyewitnesses said, Altaf and Dr Mudasir Gul, the second civilian killed in the shootout, walked out of the complex along with the security forces. “Altaf and Mudasir were asked to remain on standby outside the showroom. Some 30 minutes later, they were again taken into the complex after which there was firing. There is CCTV footage which can prove this,” another eyewitness said.

Inspector general of police (Kashmir) Vijay Kumar told reporters that Altaf and Mudasir, accompanied by security forces, knocked on the door of the room on the top floor of the shopping complex where the suspected militants were believed to be hiding, a potential violation of the Standard Operating Procedure. The Wire tried reaching the IG for his comment but he didn’t respond. This story will be updated if and when he responds.

A J&K police spokesperson said the suspected militants “started firing indiscriminately towards the party which was retaliated. However, in the initial exchange of fire, both the individuals (Altaf and Mudasir) accompanying the search party received critical gunshot injuries and succumbed to their injuries.”

‘Illegal’ says lawyer

Habeeb Iqbal, a human rights lawyer based in south Kashmir, said the statement of the J&K police suggests that Altaf was asked to accompany them when the “possibility of a gunfight was high”, which is “illegal.”

“Civilians can’t be used as human shields. This is irrespective of the fact whether the civilians are used voluntarily or involuntarily. These prohibitions are contained in the various instruments of international humanitarian law as well in the general laws,” Habeel said.

The J&K police claimed to have killed a suspected Pakistani militant and his alleged local associate, Aamir Lateef Margay, during the shootout. However, eyewitnesses claimed to have seen Aamir, a resident of Ramban’s Gool area who was working as a helper at the office of Dr Mudasir, leaving the complex when the search operation started.

“He was frisked by cops who asked him to hand over his phone. However, he told them that he was not carrying a phone and left the building,” said the second eyewitness.

Former J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah said on Wednesday that the police’s admission that the two businessmen were used to “knock on doors” of the militant hideout suggests that there were not militants. “They are civilians who died because they were put in harms (sic) way,” he wrote on Twitter.

To vilify them as militants or OGWs is bad enough but to take the bodies away & forcibly bury them in North Kashmir is a crime against humanity. The bodies must be returned to the families so they can be buried. It’s the only just thing & it’s the only humanitarian thing to do.

— Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) November 17, 2021

“To vilify them as militants or OGWs is bad enough but to take the bodies away & forcibly bury them in North Kashmir is a crime against humanity. The bodies must be returned to the families so they can be buried. It’s the only just thing & it’s the only humanitarian thing to do,” Omar said.

The families of Altaf and Dr Mudasir staged a protest in Srinagar’s Press Enclave on Wednesday evening, demanding that the police must return their mortal remains so that they could perform the last rites. Despite freezing cold conditions, the families, which included the wife and one-year-old daughter of Dr Mudasir, were planning to continue the protest through the night.

“We don’t want justice. We only want the body of my brother. We want to get a glimpse of his face and give him a decent burial close to his home so that we can visit his grave and pray for him,” Majid, Altaf’s brother said.

It Was Jahalat That Killed Both Rizwan Pandit and Aatif Mir

The dichotomy surrounding the narratives of jihad – and the discriminatory silence that stems from it – will haunt Kashmir for generations to come.

The deaths of 29-year-old school principal Rizwan Asad Pandit of Awantipora in police custody on March 19, and 12-year-old Aatif Mir, held as a human shield by militants in Hajin, Bandipora on March 22, share a lot of similarities.

Rizwan Pandit’s gruesome death in police custody is a reminder of the impunity that uniformed men in Kashmir enjoy due to draconian laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, or AFSPA. Though India signed the UN Convention against Torture in 1997, it has yet to ratify it, despite recommendations from the Law Commission.

Custodial deaths are not a new phenomenon in Kashmir; they have been normalised since the early 1990s. In 2012, the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission’s special investigation team found 2,730 unidentified bodies buried in unmarked ‘mass graves’ in North Kashmir, of which 574 were later identified as local residents of J&K. The fact that these bodies were disposed off unannounced suggests many of them would have been killed in custody – custody that was itself never acknowledged.

Also Read: In Photos: After Young Principal’s Custodial Death, Grief and Anger in Kashmir

Initial autopsy reports confirm that Rizwan’s death was due to “excessive bleeding caused by deep wounds on his body” and injuries to his hips, thighs and abdomen by a sharp object. The police, which initially announced his death in custody, has now, as an afterthought, tried to suggest he had tried to escape.

Family members and neighbours of Rizwan Asad protesting in Awantipora.

Even as Rizwan’s death left people angry and agitated, the death of young Aatif Mir, who was used as a human shield by militants, has left the valley numb. In a now viral video, Atif’s mother pleads with militants and says, “This is not jihad, this is jahalat.” The militants did not pay heed to her pleas..Indoing so, they have not only delegitimised their idea of “jihad” but also discredited it.

For them, jihad – defined theologically as a pious struggle to rid humanity of the yoke of tyranny and injustice and create an atmosphere of peace and love in society – proved to be nothing less than jahalat, or (ignorance).

Both Rizwan and Aatif met their ends because of the same ignorance, albeit in different avatars. In one case, the uniformed men were so uncivilised and ignorant in their approach to get Rizwan to confess to a crime he never committed that they ended up taking his life. In the other, the militants demonstrated that no human, economic or social cost was too high in pursuit of their agenda.

Also Read: Anger Brews in Kashmir After Militants’ ‘Unpardonable’ Use of Young Boy as Human Shield

During their captivity and final moments, both Rizwan and Aatif would have undergone the same sense of trauma, fear, vulnerability, helplessness and despair. They would have pleaded for their lives. And their killers would have ignored their cries.

The “roller” which was applied on Rizwan’s legs, causing his veins and arteries to rupture, would have made him faint with pain while Aatif would have undergone immense trauma during those nine hours of captivity.

Rizwan would have probably still hoped to win his battle against death but Aatif had lost it long before when the militants placed their gun on his shoulder. Both Rizwan and Aatif would have pleaded in the name of Allah and Prophet Mohammad but their killers showed no mercy.

The vibrancy of society depends on the treatment a citizen receives during times of duress. A society which selectively expresses concern or outrage about injustice – depending on the religion, ethnicity, colour, sex, ideology, economic or social status of perpetrator and victim – has already become an unjust one. By taking sides on the basis of who is a soldier, a civilian, a police informer or an armed rebel, the social ethos has hit its lowest ebb in Jammu and Kashmir

One the one hand, we unequivocally condemn the custodial death of Rizwan Pandit, but such condemnations are futile if not followed up by a time-bound probe. Those who have committed this heinous crime must not have protection under state law, but should be given exemplary punishment.

Also Read: Three Recent Events Prove the Alarm Bells Are Ringing Louder Than Ever in Kashmir

But in the case of Aatif Mir, the silence from our separatists, in particular, and mainstream parties, in general, is deplorable.

Why did it take more than 24 hours for the Hurriyat to condemn this horrific crime? This silence will haunt us for days if not months as we ask ourselves why we let young Atif Mir die.

We must be courageous enough to call spade a spade. This selective silence and condemnation over the dead will haunt us for generations.

Javid Majeed Pandith is an aspiring research scholar interested in sustainable development and geopolitics.

Army Chief Says Major Gogoi Will Be Punished if Found Guilty in Hotel Brawl

Leetul Gogoi had tied a Kashmiri civilian to an army jeep last year and used him as a human shield.

Srinagar: The controversial army major who was in the eye of a storm last year for tying a Kashmiri civilian to the bonnet of his jeep as a hostage was detained by police along with a young woman and his driver from a hotel here on Wednesday.

The officer, Nitin Leetul Gogoi, was not allowed by a hotel manager to enter the room he had booked accompanied by a woman. A brawl ensued – first between the major’s driver and hotel staff and then involving Gogoi himself – following which local police arrived and took Gogoi, his driver and the young woman the Khanyar police station for questioning.

On Friday, army chief Bipin Rawat said that exemplary punishment would be given to Gogoi if he was found guilty. “If anyone in Indian Army, at any rank, does any wrong and it comes to our notice then strictest action will be taken. If Major Gogoi has done something wrong then I can say that he will be given due punishment and it will be such that it will set an example,” ANI quoted Rawat as saying.

Though the police didn’t register a case, it has ordered a probe into the incident. Gogoi was not allowed to return to the hotel but handed over to his unit.

IGP (Kashmir) S.P. Pani has ordered a probe into the incident, Indian Express reported. “We are conducting a parallel detailed inquiry. The story until now is that there was a room booked in the name of Leetul Gogoi. A couple came to the hotel but were not allowed inside. They (hotel staff) had said they cannot allow a local girl in the hotel,” inquiry officer SP North City Sajad Ahmad Shah told the newspaper.

The incident

The army major had booked a room under his name at the hotel using an online service earlier that day. The booking was for a one night stay for two guests. In his booking, he had indicated he would arrive by 11 am.

Online booking made by Major Leetul Gogoi at the Grand Mamta hotel in Srinagar.

At around 9:30 am on Tuesday, Gogoi called the hotel management informing them he that he wanted to check in early. He arrived at the front-desk of the hotel at 10:30 am, wearing a blue cap, a manager of the hotel told The Wire.

When he was asked to prove his identity by the receptionist, the major showed his driving license and not his military identity card, hotel staff told The Wire.

“A girl was accompanying him. He (Gogoi) said she is with him. But when we asked for her identity we found that she is from Budgam. That is when we grew suspicious, cancelled the booking and asked them politely to leave. We told them that our rules don’t allow guests who are not in kinship to stay in the hotel,” said the manager.

At first, he said, Gogoi didn’t agree to leave, saying he has every right to stay in the room he had booked, but following a heated argument he walked out.

Gogoi and the woman had been dropped at the hotel by a young man in civvies in a Suzuki Alto who, according to hotel staff, was waiting outside.

“While leaving the hotel, he (Gogoi) shouted at his driver that the hotel staff had misbehaved with him. The man came out of the car and assaulted our guest-relations manager. The situation grew tense as drivers of some vehicles who were picking our guests caught hold of him and beat him up… then there was an altercation between Gogoi, his driver and hotel staff,” the manager said.

Sensing trouble, the hotel management called the police and all the three – Gogoi, the girl and the man who had driven them – were taken away to Khanyar police station downtown around 11 am.

A local youth who identified himself as Javaid Ahmad said nobody realised the hotel guest was the same man who had been responsible for the hostage/human shield incident. “It was [after the police took him away] that we came to know that he is Major Gogoi,” said Ahmad.

What the police says

The army has not said anything about the incident. In a statement the police didn’t identify Major Gogoi or the girl but identified the young man with them as Sameer Ahmed.

via GIPHY

“It surfaced that a woman and person namely Sameer Ahmed of Budgam had come to see some person… it was learnt that the woman had come to meet an army officer. The identity and particulars of the army officer have been collected by the police,” a police spokesman said in the statement.

A senior police official said Sameer was also working with army. “They (Gogoi and Sameer) probably belong to the same unit,” said the police official, adding that both were later handed over to the army. The girl was handed over to her relatives after police recorded her statement too.

There were however contradictory details about the girl’s age. While a manger at the hotel told The Wire that her Aadhar card showed her date of birth as 1999, some news reports claimed that she was a minor. The police say she was older than 18 years.

On Saturday, various reports claimed that the woman had told the magistrate that she went to the hotel “of her own free will” because she wanted to spend time with Gogoi who was “already known” to her. She told the magistrate that she and the major had met on “several occasions”.

Late on Wednesday afternoon, inspector general of police (Kashmir), S.P. Pani ordered a probe into the matter which would be conducted by the superintendent of police (north zone Srinagar).

Who is Gogoi?

Posted with the army’s 53 RR at Beerwah in central Kashmir’s Budgam district, Gogoi hit the headlines last year when on April 9, 2017 he took 26-year old Farooq Ahmad Dar, a resident of Chill-Brass village from the district, as a hostage, tied him to an army jeep. This was on the day of by-polls to the Srinagar-Budgam Lok Sabha constituency. Dar was then paraded by Gogoi in this fashion through several villages for nearly five hours as a warning of the fate that would befall Kashmiris who throw stones at the security forces.

A shawl weaver, Dar was in fact among the few villagers who had turned out to cast their vote on the day when the constituency, which recorded the lowest ever turnout of 7%, witnessed eight civilians killings in firing by security forces as angry mobs tried to attack some polling stations.

The treatment of Dar had evoked global outrage but the army defended the action claiming that the Budgam youth was “instigating a stone-pelting mob” and “could have been their ring leader”.

On May 29, Army chief Bipin Rawat said the army was facing a “dirty war” in J&K which has to be fought through “innovative” ways, defending the use of Dar as a hostage. He later awarded Major Gogoi with the army chief’s commendation medal for his “sustained efforts” in counterinsurgency operations.

Note: This report was updated on May 25 with the army chief’s statement.

Home Ministry Admits It Has Standard Operating Procedures On ‘Human Shield’ But Doesn’t Give Details

The Centre had admitted in 2013 that a draft on such a policy was circulated to the states and armed forces.

Farooq Ahmad Dar being used as a human shield and Major General Leetul Gogoi. Credit: Video screengrabs

The use of a civilian as a ‘human shield‘ by the Indian Army in Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir, during the Srinagar byelections, had stirred the collective conscience of the nation. It left many wondering if the act by Major General Leetul Gogoi was allowed under the standard operating procedures (SOPs) laid down for the security forces. The ministry of home affairs (MHA) has, in a response to a query filed under the right to information (RTI) Act, refused to divulge the details of such SOPs, while dropping broad hints that they do exit.

Compensation for “human shield”

Although Gogoi was honoured by the army for using Farooq Ahmad Dar as a ‘human shield’, the fact that the state human rights commission (SHRC) had ordered that Dar be paid a compensation of Rs 10 lakh was indication enough that he was not a stone pelter, as alleged, and that the situation ought to have been handled differently.

Responding to the RTI filed by activist Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, the MHA rejected his plea asking for details of the SOPs in areas where militant groups are active and use civilians as ‘human shields’.

MHA evasive

“While the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) did not bother to send any reply, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the MHA has rejected my first appeal invoking security and strategic interests of the state as grounds for for refusing disclosure,” said Nayak.

Following the Budgam episode, Nayak said he wanted to know the details of SOPs for various reasons. One major reason was that the SHRC had chosen to treat the army action as one which led to “humiliation, physical, psychological torture and wrongful confinement” of the victim, rather than the “life saving strategy” the Army portrayed it to be.

Noting that the law does not permit such treatment for even a convict, he said the media had also reported the unwillingness of some unnamed officers of the security forces to follow such coercive measures. “Instead they have expressed the desire to build better relations with local residents in conflict-affected areas.”

Centre had admitted to SOPs earlier

Nayak insisted that the Centre apparently does have SOPs on the use of ‘human shields’ but does not want to share them. “It is not as if the government had no policy on the issue of ‘human shields’ in militancy-affected areas. Almost four years before the Budgam incident occurred, a member of parliament had raised a query about the alleged ‘use of civilians as shields’ by left-wing militant groups in other parts of India,” he said.

In response to a query by P. Kumar of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in May 2013, Nayak said, the then minister of state for home had provided some statistics as well as made an important revelation about the existence of a draft SOP on ‘Maoists using villagers as human shields’, which was circulated among the armed forces and states affected by left-wing extremism (LWE) for comment. The CPIO of MHA, however, did not bother to even respond to Nayak’s query.

“Security and strategic interests” cited

When the activist, after waiting nearly two months, filed the appeal before the FAA, it was rejected on the ground that the information and documents sought were “secret in nature and disclosure of such documents would prejudicially affect the security and strategic interests of the state.”

Nayak said that this reply made it clear that the SOPs to guide security forces for handling situations with ‘human shields’ do exist and that the MHA did not want to disclose them.

Demanding that attention be paid to a statement of the MoS in 2013 that “the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) have sensitised their field formations to take utmost care to avoid casualties/injuries and any form of harassment of locals while undertaking anti-naxal operations even when they are used as human shields by the Maoists… The government of India has issued instructions to all state governments/CAPFs to adhere to the highest standards of human rights during anti-LWE operations and to strictly deal with aberrations…”, he said, this policy clearly applies to states affected by LWE.

In the case of other states, including Jammu and Kashmir, he said, “it is not clear whether similar instructions and the related SOPs apply to security personnel” deployed there as well.

A different yardstick for J&K?

“If the government’s policy is to adhere to the strictest standards of human rights despite any provocation and avoid any form of harassment of locals even when they are used as “human shields” in other states, how can the use of a civilian in Jammu and Kashmir as a ‘human shield’ by security forces themselves be reconciled with this policy?”

Or, he wondered if the the policy of strict adherence to human rights standards by security forces is not applicable to Jammu and Kashmir due to its special constitutional status (under Article 370) or has been changed under the present regime.

BJP Leader Asks J&K Human Rights Commission to Review Decision to Compensate Farooq Dar

The state human rights commission had on July 10 directed Jammu and Kashmir to pay Dar Rs 10 lakh as compensation.

Farooq Ahmad Dar tied to a jeep in Kashmir on April 9. Credit: Video screengrab

New Delhi: A BJP leader from Chhattisgarh leader plans to file a petition with the Jammu and Kashmir state human rights commission (SHRC) asking it to review its decision to ask the J&K government to compensate Farooq Ahmad Dar, who was used as a human shield by the army on April 9, the day of the Lok Sabha bypoll in Budgam.

The SHRC had on July 10 directed J&K to pay Dar Rs 10 lakh as compensation. In the order, the commission had said that 26-year-old Dar, who had been strapped to an army jeep and paraded through villages, had been subjected to “torture and humiliation” by the army.

The commission had, however, not directed any action against Major Leetul Gogoi, who was responsible for the incident, saying that the SHRC did not have jurisdiction over the army.

Gori Shankar Shrivas, state secretary of the BJP Kisan Morcha, who is leading the delegation that will meet SHRC secretary in Srinagar today, told the Indian Express, “There is a lot of anger against it among youth throughout the country. How can SHRC order the government to give compensation to this man (who was made a human shield)? Such a step would demoralise the army. We registered our opposition to this move and sought that the SHRC review this order.”

State BJP leaders Dinesh Tripathy and Ajay Singh Rathore were also accompanying Shrivas to the meeting. “Major sahib who tied this man Farooq to his vehicle did so without caring for his life. We have nothing against Farooq Dar but we say Major sahib wasn’t wrong. Both the army and the central government have said that Major sahib didn’t do anything wrong,” Shrivas told the Indian Express.