In war, or war like scenarios, where split second decisions are to be taken and acted upon by the Personnel of the Forces, we have to trust that the selection procedures and the extensive training we put them through will hone their instincts and enable them to make the best possible decision and react accordingly in that situation, when over thinking may lead to slower reaction and hence, to injury or even death not only to themselves but also, to people for whose security they are responsible. In other situations, outside the circle of competence attained through their training, slow and rational thinking can be resorted to.

The post event critics, with the benefit of hindsight and without the urgency of immediate action / reaction, in fact with the option to also, replay the scenario to suit new ideas or information, should not be allowed to en-danger the Forces by tying their hands with the unjust threat of civil/ judicial action. In Law everyone has a right to be tried by his / her peers. People who have never had to face such situations cannot really be allowed to act as ‘jury’/‘critics’ of those who have. Even in Sports we do not really accept that one who has never played the game can be an umpire or even a proper critic of that game. A proper understanding of the Geneva Conventions will help clarify the distinction between ‘Enemy Soldiers’ and ‘Enemy Combatants’ / Terrorists or Spies, or Supporters. Politicians and other local leaders, seeking short term benefits, must not be allowed to guide the response of the Security Forces. The fact that only a very small percentage of the alleged misdeeds of the Security Forces finally stand up to scrutiny, and that in such cases appropriate action has been taken by the authorities without delay, proves the point.

In such conflicts it is not only necessary to win but it is also, necessary to use the victory to bring about long-term peace and good order and it is at this time that magnanimity is called for, not during the conflict. Also, calls for human rights or for development can only be addressed once hostilities are over or the hostiles have surrendered. It is necessary that we understand the present-day attitude of the general public towards war / such hostilities, and towards Soldiers / Security Forces, to be able to better address their concerns for human rights abuses and make them understand the realities of functioning in hostile actions. (See ‘Public & Soldiers – How they view each other & War’ at www.ideaz4india.in).

As long as the ‘End State’ is an improvement as desired, some collateral damage and even adverse side – effects should be accepted as inevitable consequences, e.g.: as in surgical operation and with strong medications. Otherwise, it would only result in repetitive operations and prolonged treatment with no end in sight, like when the Security Forces are too hesitant to acas necessary and the political leaders are too short sighted to be properly supportive. This only causes continuing unnecessary suffering and greater damage.

Pages: 1 2 3 4