Speedy justice

Justice came a few months too late for the victim. She had lost her mental equilibrium in the traumatic aftermath of rape. But there is re...

Justice came a few months too late for the victim. She had lost her mental equilibrium in the traumatic aftermath of rape. But there is reason still to welcome the sentencing of Captain Ravinder Singh Tewatia to seven years rigorous imprisonment and his dismissal from service after a court martial. Tewatia was found guilty of raping a 17 year-old girl and her mother in Nawgam in Banihal tehsil, Jammu, when he was ostensibly looking for militants in the mountainous area on February 14; the trial verdict was declared on September 30. Seen alongside the Army’s disclosure in January this year that 56 of its men have been punished for committing human rights violations in the course of anti-terrorism operations, the speedy action against Tewatia by the Army authorities is good news indeed. It comes as reassuring evidence of the Army’s sincerity in punishing its guilty.

Down the years, and especially in the last decade, the Indian Army has faced a barrage of charges of human rights violations ranging from custodial killings, "encounter deaths" to rape and molestation during counter-insurgency operations, be it in Jammu and Kashmir or the North-east. There have been allegations, and with good reason, of rampant misuse of special powers vested in security forces under the special, often draconian, laws promulgated in disturbed areas. Though the Army has its own human rights monitoring cell which acts upon reports in local newspapers and complaints from people, it has been obvious that justice has not always been done. Questions have been raised about the lack of transparency and accountability. The National Human Rights Commission complains that its investigations into complaints are persistently stonewalled and that access to crucial documents and evidence necessary to arrive at a fair and just determination of complaints is summarily blocked. On its part, the armyheadquarters routinely dismisses such allegations as "baseless and motivated". While there is enough reason to treat official protestations with scepticism and though "militants’ propaganda" and "forces’ morale" are often invoked as camouflage, the fact also is that human rights commissions can at times be suspected of misguided zeal. It is often easy to lose sight of the fact that as it engages the enemy within, the army is itself under tremendous pressure which takes its inevitable toll.

The solution lies in greater transparency in the application of internal correctives. This is why Tewatia’s punishment is especially remarkable. By all accounts, it comes as a direct response by army authorities to the villagers’ complaints of the perpetration of the crime; there is no evidence of intervention or haranguing by any external watchdog. Tewatia’s case sends out some pretty optimistic signals about the army’s ability to police itself.