The Army Chief General Bipin Rawat, gave an interview to a national news agency last week. Opposition parties and media have accused him of making intemperate comments during his interaction.

The statements, some partially misquoted, include phrases such as ‘dirty war in Kashmir’, ‘firing weapons instead of throwing stones’, ‘adversaries and your people should be afraid of you’ and his continued support to Major Gogoi including commending him for his service in counter-insurgency operations.

The fact that some of his statements were misquoted and some twisted needs to be clarified. A fact which must never be forgotten is that the Indian Army is from the nation, by the nation and with the nation, hence irrelevant comments against its own people would never flow.

This article is based on the press release issued by the Army. The chief had stated that the army is involved in a ‘proxy war in Kashmir’ and a ‘proxy war is a dirty war’.

He never stated that it is fighting a dirty war against its people. From Pakistan’s side, all gloves are off and there are no rules of engagement. It employs its agents in India to instigate the population, mainly the youth, to hinder Army operations against militants, by resorting to stone pelting.

For Pakistan, civilian casualties due to collateral damage, which is feasible when firing occurs from all directions, only benefits the cause and enables its propaganda machine to go on an overdrive. Hence the Army chief stated that ‘to fight a dirty war, innovative methods must be adopted’.

Major Gogoi had adopted an innovative method wherein by placing one individual in jeopardy he saved possibly dozens of lives. It also does not imply that such an action would become a doctrine nor would it continue being repeated.

Other innovative methods may be employed, depending on the situation, basically to prevent firing and related casualties. At the same time, the Army has given a message to its forces deployed in the valley that similar incidents should preferably be avoided.

The other statement, misinterpreted by critics was of the ‘population throwing stones and petrol bombs and not firing weapons’.

When fired upon, the Army is free to retaliate as it comes in the realm of self-defence, but with stone throwers it cannot and would not retaliate unless the situation is life threatening.

This situation could get out of control when mobs resort to throwing petrol bombs on vehicles, as was the case in the Gogoi incident. Under normal conditions, retaliation against stone throwers is the responsibility of police forces; however when resorted to during anti-militant operations, it can result in Army casualties, inviting retaliation.

The Army has been compelled at times to walk away from anti-militant operations due to presence of large number of stone-throwing locals, an action against its charter. Since terrorists fire weapons, the Army is free to respond and does so with force.

The Chief was seeking to clarify that throwing stones is more harmful to operations than firing as the Army is compelled to show restraint. The mention of ‘fear and respect’ is logical.

The Army is the instrument of last resort for the nation. In every instance of disorder including operations against anti-national elements, it is inducted when all other options have failed. Haryana, Gujarat, Mizoram, Nagaland, Assam, Punjab and now J and K are examples.

It brought relief, confidence and succour to affected communities in Gujarat and Haryana, as also restored peace with almost no firing or heavy-handed actions. It created a positive environment in NE states and Punjab, enabling the government to find a solution and establish order, from a position of strength. This happens because the Army is considered apolitical, fair and just.

It is known that once the Army is inducted, it will fulfil its missions. This is the implication of fear and respect. Criticising it, terming it as having become politicised and forcibly lowering its standing, harms this image, which would be detrimental to the nation rather than the Army.

On the other hand, across the border, the Army must be feared, failing which, domination of the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border (IB), would not be feasible. Fear implies the enemy knowing it would retaliate and do so with full vigour in case of any misadventures.

The support to Major Gogoi has also been severely commented upon. The chief’s statement was open and clear. Firstly, as the Army chief, he was aware of the progress of the enquiry and its findings. If he desires to know the progress of an important enquiry, it would be informed to him, which is logical.

Secondly, this was a one-off incident, resorted to as other options would have only resulted in casualties. Decisions in such scenarios are split second ones, delays could result in loss of lives. Soldiers deployed in Kashmir work under immense pressure.

Each time they venture out of their camp, they are unsure of a safe return. Supporting them in their actions, even at times if partially at fault, is the responsibility of the senior hierarchy.

Commending Gogoi, not solely for this incident, but for his performance all through his tenure, was a message sent to all serving officers that the hierarchy is behind you, since each day you put your lives on a limb? General Rawat is a soldier who is open, frank and to the point.

He never hesitates to call a spade a spade, irrespective of criticism. His priority is the men he commands, whose welfare and security is paramount. His experience enables him to understand the pressures his men face and the fact that unless he stands by them, they would lose confidence in the face of unwarranted criticism.

He knows that the country respects the Army, irrespective of a few critics who would twist words to suit their requirements. For the public, who have been reading distorted versions, this is aimed at clearing minds and removing misconceptions, if any.

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