The author, Colonel Prakash Bhatt (Retd), is Former Deputy Commandant Kumaon Regimental Centre and Former Additional DIG Assam Rifles (Nagaland).
(The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect that of Nagaland Tribune.)
The Honourable Supreme Court’s Judgement pertaining to Oting (Mon) incident has been received in Nagaland with much disappointment, though it was not totally unexpected. It was expected that the appeal of the State Government would be rejected on technical grounds as the Central Government had not given its consent for legal trial as required under the AFSPA. However, the Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that the case could be opened subsequently whenever the Central Government accords its consent for trial. It would not be out of place to mention that AFSPA safeguards for Security Personnel are against militants, whereas in this case the villagers killed were innocents and killed due to serious procedural lapses.
The moot point is that didn’t the State Government know about the likely outcome of its appeal? There is a double-engine coalition government in Nagaland so it was expected that the State unit of the party would impress upon the Central leadership to accord permission for the trial. Even if their request was not acceded it should have at least joined the Naga community to express its indignation. Alternately regarding the Beef Ban Event the state party had defied the party ideology in demanding ban on the event.
Soon after the Oting incident it was business as usual in Nagaland. The tribal community was kept in good humour as its member was nominated to the Rajya Sabha and the Corps Commander was transferred on promotion. Eastern Nagaland Tribal bodies too got busy in flurry of meetings with the Central interlocutor on its demand for a New State. It is well understood that the state will always take care of the Security Personnel, and the kin would protect their family members. This was known to the State Government so was its appeal just a charade to keep Nagas amused. The least the Government could have done was for senior Central Ministers to visit the village and tender apology to the families of the victims and promise of disciplinary action against the responsible Security Personnel under the provisions of the Army Act.
The judgement has been received but there is deafening silence from the double engine government and the self-styled UG group leaders. Even retired defence officers have issued statements on Manipur but there is a deafening silence on Oting judgement. The Government must realise that to support a lapse committed by a small group the reputation of entire Security Forces gets tarnished. It is a wakeup call for all stake holders involved in the peace negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues expeditiously to usher peace and prosperity in Nagaland to avoid repetition of such incidents.
Colonel Prakash Bhatt (Retd)
Noida