 I have one question. You didn't respond to Major Gogoi but I'll skip that. Maybe you can take it in my next question. I have one concern that I want to share with you and I want your response to that. It's one thing for army to be used for short duration operation to quell and to bring a situation under control where it seems to have gone out of control of the civil administration. That is one type of scenario. But when an Indian army of a constitutional republic is deployed for prolonged use which can carry on for decades and decades inside the country, do you think it distracts army from its primary task and somewhere affects the army adversely if this continues over a long period as it has done because somewhere it affects the morale, the discipline of the people? Because in the doctrine for instance of subconventional warfare one significant feature of it is that unlike conventional wars subconventional wars are fought amongst people. Not against a regular army but against. So the army now suddenly from fighting regular army which it can recognize as a recognizable enemy it has now to shift its attention to shift and distinguish between civilian and combatants which makes it task even more difficult. How do you look at this? One thing which we discussed earlier too I mentioned that our governments are never able to define the critical end state and in fact they also must define the military end state at what state the military's role must end. So since both the end states, the military end state and the critical end state are not defined and especially for the critical end state we do very little. So nobody really takes the action to remove the army and the army knowing the experience of the past where the police you know where the governments eventually do nothing it has happened in the SAM so many times. That you know before the initial student's agitation then withdraw the army then something else then come back again then you know so many times it will be deployed and deployed. So then the army says to look if we are going to be redeployed and start all over again well might as well stay put. That's the fear of the army. It's an imagined fear I feel that at times it is not so because really speaking in certain states of the northeast there is no need of the kind of deployment that we are involved with. But the government doesn't take the decision. The government deploys the army. The government should remove it and also- Army cannot tell the government that- Army can advise the government that we have finished our job now we should be pulled out but the decision is still with the government. I remember there was an instance when we had a division from the northeast which was operating in Jammu and Kashmir. Sometimes in 2000 it was operating there since 2000. Since of Prakram it was operating there and it never sent back. Whenever the question used to come back either the chief minister or somebody would somebody would write in the press that army is moving out of troops. So the orders would be changed. At times a stage came when half the division was in northeast and half was here. So this is again a political decision which has not been taken and no end state defined either way and we carry on indefinitely in a state of suspended animation. And this itself contributes to insurgency because insurgency is a chain reaction. One person killed, one soldier killed, the soldiers tried to capture that man, more collateral damage and a chain reaction that goes on for years is what this thing. So violence itself becomes an end in itself. That's why the people's frustration. But since- I know we are running out of time but since you asked about Major Gugai. I think till the Major Gugai incident took place Indian army has functioned strictly as per the law of the land. There have been aberrations in the past. They were aberrations in the past beginning right from the killing of Dr. Haralu, mistaken identity but actually there was allegations that he was killed deliberately. In fact they were court marshals that took place because of that. I had written about this incident also the other day. So right from that time there have been rogue actions and Indian army has taken action against them and in JNK alone, I think if I am on a rough count should be about anything from 150 to 200 court marshals have taken place. So because moment an army doesn't follow its own rules and regulations and law of the land, then it tends to become a rogue army. That's what happened to the Pakistan army in East Pakistan. This is the danger. That is why no army likes this to go unchecked and unpunished. Major Gugai's incident was a, there was nothing nebulous about it. It was crystal clear that he had, it was a deliberate action and all the story about saving election commission officials and all was made up and he paraded them around a stand-alone rogue action by one officer which would have logically been dealt with swiftly and you know as per the military's law and the officer would have been suitably punished for this action. But by this time after the Vani agitation there's phenomenal amount of frustration and there was overall national emotion this thing and a common enemy had been identified. So everything and I would say to an extent the military hierarchy got affected by it and they broke away from years of tradition, years of customs, years of, their sacrosanct rules and regulations and their own military law and firstly condoned the action, rubbish the court of enquiry, their own court of enquiry then commended the man and what signal does it send to the rest in the army? The signal that goes to rest in the army, it's alright, these things do happen, nothing will happen to you and that spells as my favourite word, ominous portals for the Indian army. That is why this image will continue to hot the Indian army for all time to come. After you retired you served on the armed forces tribunal. So my question to you is then a constitutional republic like ours in a democracy that we claim to be in disturbed areas there we have Armed Forces Special Powers Act which provides the army with legal immunities that without sanction no army of personnel or armed forces personnel can be prosecuted. I mean you can file an FIR, do an investigation but you can't, the judicial magistrate cannot take cognizance of this without sanction of the central government and even there the army has a choice whether it wants to refer the matter to its own court marshal or refer it to a criminal court. So my question to you is that army's court marshal is actually a court of discipline for its own personnel. Civilians have no role, no local standard in that. In a conflict area or in a disturbed area where army is deployed and where there are instances of violations or violence or atrocities or excess say committed by armed forces personnel. Do you think in a constitutional republic like ours, civilians ought to have the right to move the criminal court rather than these proceedings take place in court marshal from which where they have no local standard and they can't even get a copy of the records of the court marshal because they have no local standard. In order to ensure precisely the point that you made earlier in order to win the hearts and minds of the people that if any excess is committed that you will have records to justice. In a sort of ideal kind of world, an Ethiopian world, the concept that you are talking about probably can work. I think no barring if I'm not wrong but the insurgencies don't take place in other armies. There are provisions in other armies where civilian courts can also try all the cases and army doesn't have a kind of absolute layover, taking over the cases and trying them. Army zone charter allows for it in peace zones if it's a murder. In case of offences which are civilian offences under section 69. They refer to the criminal court. It has nothing to do with the army. If the case has nothing to do with the army, army soldier commits a murder of a civilian in the town then the case would always be tried. But what happens in an insurgency environment and this has happened both in the northeast and Jammu and Kashmir that's particularly in the initial stages and as the insurgency hardens in the later stages is that the people are alienated. The lawyers and at times even the judges of the lower courts, the police all at some point become more sympathetic to the terrorists. So consequently the army armed forces have always felt that the soldiers who are accused of such cases will not get justice. You know this is the reason why such a thing cannot be ever put in place. But yes if the system has stabilized over a period of time and then sort of it can, it can happen in the utopian world. Coming to this point about Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Armed Forces Special Powers Act is crystal clear that it's a kind of framework for the army to operate in the insurgency environment. It protects him against you know sort of lawful actions. It does not protect him for unlawful actions. The plea that the armed forces have taken over in recent cases is that even the mere start of the investigation is against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. That's not true. I think there was never such thing. It's an interpretation and which has come in recent times. Up to the hearing of the charge, there can be joint investigations. There can be independent investigations by the police or by the army. And moment the charge is heard at the registration level and if both sides agree the police and the army, no issue. That means it's a this thing and then the army that there is no quarrel. Army will say please give us this person. We will try him under court martial. And court marshals are open to public. I mean while I agree that court armies legal system itself needs reforms but court marshals are open to public. Nothing stops journalists from sitting there. And I find that people don't do it except in a high profile case but you can sit in an army court martial. So now if supposing the army agrees the police is non-committal army will try the care anyway. If army feel is innocent and the police feel he is guilty, that's where the trouble starts. Now even the hearing of the charge is done. The army says look we invoke the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. You can't try him unless you take central government permission. And today central government has never given permission. So this means also that the center itself has been party to it and it just deflects the thing off. Even when it went to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court had to give direction directly to the army. So this, so long as the army adheres to its own rules, its own regulation strictly applies them, there is no problem. But so long a biosection that you are going to use this provision to safeguard unit interests, organizational interests or save a rogue soldier or an officer, I think the problem starts. And then there is no looking back. Then you do it for one other person says well why not me, what wrong have I done, why should I pay the price. So this is what the army has to arrest. And that is why the armies test its support by not taking action against those officers. Though they have a right to approach the Supreme Court under certain provisions of the constitution. You are talking about the Marshall case. The 376 officers who have gone there. So I think it's very wrong. Moment a trend sets in that the army has, for the same reasons as Major Gugai, the moment a trend sets in, a feeling sets in that the hierarchy will condone wrong actions, then it becomes a trend. And then there is no turning back, it only goes forward. In this particular instance, the central government snubbed its own appointed army chief because the army chief told the colonels conference and cautioned the officers not to move the Supreme Court individually while they were still in service. And he had warned that there would be consequences if Supreme Court were to turn back. Yeah, he did. Whereas the central government, despite his advisory, went ahead and argued on behalf of those officers. And lo and behold, what happens? Justice Locor and Justice Lalit dismissed their petition and refused to accept that plea. Now we are back to square one. Very, very, I would say very unfortunate. The chief did make a public comment. But in my view, he should have done more than that. Whether at his level or whether at the level, lower level, there was a tacit understanding between the commanders and otherwise a low-end colonel in the JAG branch, who is the prime mover of this application, could not have got hold of 356. And I gave an example, even I wrote about it, that over a hundred soldiers of one particular unit, which doesn't take part in insurgency operations, had a party to this, what party to this petition, why? Because the commanding officer in an earlier avatar when he was operating elsewhere in some rifles or somewhere, he was accused of a wrong. And he was one of the petitioners. He made 107. So this whole petition by 356 officers required a detailed investigation by the army and appropriate action to be taken against them. And I had cited the provisions of the various provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rule under which it could be done. So this was very wrong. And if we start endorsing these trends, then I'm afraid that Indian Army will lose its reputation. Well, thank you very much once again, General. Thank you for watching NewsClick. If you have any feedback, if you have any response, do get back to us. Until then, goodbye for now.