An incident can change a life; it can bring fame and can become a topic for a national debate which continues to simmer. The tying of Ahmed Dar to a jeep by Major Leetul Gogoi is one such. Many salute the officer for his ingenuity and quick thinking; opponents including some senior Army veterans criticise him for violating human rights. I am certain that if an online poll is conducted on the action, the results may be in his support.

The incident was explained in simple terms by an equally simple Gogoi to the media. He was detailed on a tactical mission to rescue a team of security and polling officials trapped in a room, surrounded by a mob of over 400, screaming for their blood, armed with stones and petrol bombs. His own Quick Reaction Team (QRT) was small but mobile. His intuitive action had to be quick and fast, as delay in decision-making could have resulted in multiple deaths, compelling the government to resort to firefighting at the national and international level. In such situations, it is instinct, based on experience and understanding which bring out the best in an individual.

The QRT’s mine-protected vehicle (which is heavier than others) got bogged down after the rescue and the men faced stones and petrol bombs. The soldiers were exposed as they attempted to free the vehicle. The mob was closing in. Major Gogoi then took the decision of tying an individual from the mob to his jeep, creating immediate confusion in local minds. Thereafter he drove to safety. Versions differ on whether Dar was an instigator or a bystander who had defied the diktat of militants to cast his vote. The issue being raised is the action of tying.

To understand the situation, we must place ourselves in the officer’s shoes. In the midst of chaos, with stones and petrol bombs raining down, is it feasible to question an individual on his intent? It was simply instinct, right or wrong is not the question. It occurred in the midst of a crisis when a rescue mission was in progress. Ahmed Dar, the victim, claims that he still carries mental scars of the incident. I wonder how many stones or petrol bombs fell on him. The answer is none. He was tied to a jeep, with no bullets flying, taken some distance to the army camp, provided tea and released in the presence of his village elders, unharmed.

Scars would remain in the hearts of polling officials (who were also locals), ITBP and J and K police personnel, who were surrounded by a mob, baying for their blood. No one has ever considered the impact this incident would have on their mental state, as if they are cannon fodder. They were in the vehicle which was stuck and faced a flurry of stones and petrol bombs. Are they not humans and entitled to human rights? Is it a crime to be nominated for polling duty? They are the ones who are scarred, having survived the most horrific moments of life.

The other issue is that a simple tactical mission could have led to a strategic catastrophe had the officer not taken the decision. Had a petrol bomb struck the vehicle, casualties of security forces and polling officials would have been high and the only way out would have been to open fire. This could have resulted in dozens of casualties including locals, army and polling officials, as the army never carries pellet guns. It would have made international news and those criticising the tying incident would have then stated that the army was ruthless and employed excessive force.

Those who claim that this ‘action would haunt the army forever’ should remember that had firing occurred, the casualties would have ‘haunted the nation forever’ and resulted in an international furore. It would have become part of history books as the darkest day in the history of the Kashmir agitation and given a boost to Pakistan, the Hurriyat and the agitators. Major Gogoi’s action prevented that from happening.

Our critics possess tactical mindsets, unwilling to expand to strategic levels and access the aftermath in case Major Gogoi had behaved as expected. This is exactly what the army chief stated in his interview a few days ago. All I read in statements of those opposing the decision is that there was a violation of human rights. It is easy to sit back and criticise decisions taken under duress and pressure. Tough situations demand tough and timely decisions, something which only leaders do. Gogoi took a decision in a difficult situation and deserves national applause.

The other criticism is of the army for commending the officer for his action. This was done intentionally and for many reasons. Firstly, as the Chief of Army Staff has stated, it was to keep army morale up by conveying that the government, the army and a majority of the nation stood by the officer. Secondly, it was born of an understanding that his action saved a catastrophe and brought an extremely dangerous situation in control without a single bullet being fired.

Thirdly it conveyed to those who support the agitation that the army means business and will not permit agitators to gain the upper hand. Finally, it was a message to those who claim human rights were violated that their perception was misplaced and deserved to be ignored.

As a soldier who is aware of such operations and pressures, I on behalf of almost all Indians salute Major Gogoi for his ingenuity and initiative. He prevented casualties, rescued trapped comrades and saved lives of agitators. In the ultimate analysis, human rights activists have made Ahmed Dar a national figure, while the scarred polling officials who faced almost certain death remain nameless and ignored. Sadly, this is a biased approach.

The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.