The issue isn't about Gogoi's action at all.
In the heat of the moment and prevailing circumstances he did
something whch has ample historical precedent (ie the taking civilian
hostages and even killing them as reprisal, against partisan action -
partisans being deemed as outside the scope of conventions). We can
never know why he did it, perhaps he was badly outnumbered and chose
the cowards way out to save his own skin ?
What is up for discussion is the COAS's command interference in
commending Gogoi when the CoI (Court of Inquiry) (hastily convened and
concluded 2 days after COAS' interference) was still to pronounce
their findings on Gogoi's actions.
Kashmir is increasingly turning into India's Palestine problem, and
it's well known that Israel is training our boys in such
On 6/16/17, Karan Kharb <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dear Mr Dhingra,
> Your argument is, no doubt, correct. Let us assume Dhar was indeed
> "innocent" and, legally speaking, Gogoi was wrong. But the situation before
> Major Gogoi denied him the luxuries of law in a mileu that demanded
> immediate action. It required him to rescue a group of polling staff and a
> handful paramilitary personnel surrounded - virtually taken hostage - by an
> irate mob menacingly threatening to lynch them.
> In such an emergency, Gogoi had only three options:
> 1. Leave the entrapped hostages at the mercy of the enraged mob and run
> away from the scene leaving them at the mercy of the manifestly angry mob.
> 2. Launch a shooting assault on the angry mob and rescue the hostages
> leaving behind many dead and injured in the mob.
> 3. Ignore the luxury protocol of legality for a while and think of a method
> that would minimise harm. Quickly, he nnovated a method that is not found
> in the law books. It helped him to avoid opening of fire and enabled him
> to rescue the endangered polling staff and paramilitary personnel to
> The so-called victim "Dhar" helped Gogoi in accomplishing a complex task
> that otherwise could have ended in a massacre.
> Sitting far away from the danger zones in the safe and luxurient environs
> of a hotel in New Delhi it is cruel to find faults with soldiers fightibg
> and dying to defend this country in this invisible war on India. More
> particularly, finding faults without suggesting a better, more effective
> course is no more than a dirty mischief aimed at demoralising our troops
> and boosting the spirits of the proxy soldiers of the enemy. You are
> gunning the Army only for the "apparent wrong" without suggesting the
> "right course", if any.
> We all know, Gogoi opted for Option 3. Just tell us what you would do if
> you were in Gogoi's shoes with same grave stuation staring at you with an
> impending lynching of the polling staff in the offiing?
> Which option should Gogoi have chosen?
> Please think again. If there were any respect for the "Rule of Law" in the
> Kashmir Valley, there would be no need for the Army there. We all know it
> as well that the Army, the last resort of the Nation, comes in only after
> the laws and rules have failed to let Democracy proceed and flourish. No
> wonder, world over the governments, diplomats and piliticians still agree
> and endorse - even if reluctantly - the dictum of history: "Laws are silent
> in times of war!"
> Ponder a little more on the oft-quoted phrase in the courts of law -
> and spirit*". Gogoi did not care the "*letter*" but he followed the "
> *spirit*" of law which stoked his conscience to save innocent human lives.
> If I were "Dhar", I would rather suggest to Major Gogoi to use me in the
> same manner if such a method could avoid a massacre that was then imminent.
> I thank Dhar for his help.
> I beg you all to please think again; think differently keeping the national
> interest uppermost in mind.
> Best regards,
> Karan Kharb
> *Turning Point Publishers*
> On 15 Jun 2017 23:12, "K.S. Dhingra" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Dear Harwant,
> My views on three issues raised in your mail are as under.
> Under the Anglo-Saxon legal system, which India follows, a person is said
> to be innocent unless proved guilty before a court of law. Till the time
> Army took the unprecedented step Darwas not declared guilty of any offence
> by any court. As such, Dar is to be considered innocent.
> The question involved is of the human rights of the citizens of the
> country. It is immaterial whether he was paraded in five villages or twenty
> villages or twenty-five villages. The mere fact that he was tied with the
> jeep by an organ of the State is a matter of serious concern since it
> involves infringement of civil liberties of the person concerned.
> The subsequent act of handing over of Dar by Army to police, even if
> correct, does not validate the acts of violation of human rights of Dar by
> an authority not competent to do so under the law of the land.
> In the light of above, I tend to agree with M G Kapoor who himself is an
> army veteran.
> K S Dhingra