The notion that complex issues can be conveyed by one single image is best exemplified by the English idiom - "a picture is worth a thousand words". One such picture that has created a fierce debate is that of an individual tied to the bonnet of a military vehicle. The man was reportedly being used as a human shield by security forces against stone-pelting crowds during the recent by-elections in the Srinagar constituency.

That this image has stirred emotions and generated a debate encompassing thousands of words are not surprising considering the complex situation prevailing in certain parts of Jammu and Kashmir. However, what is intriguing is the prejudiced attitude towards the army, which is being expected to perform a thankless task owing to the failure of the very institutions of our democracy and governance that, one believes, many commentators are speaking up for.

As further details have emerged, it transpires that it was not just a trigger-happy army that had caught the innocent voter, Farooq Dar, and used him as a human shield, as some psy-ops protagonists had wanted to project. A polling booth in Srinagar parliamentary constituency with around 20 officials was surrounded and being threatened by a huge mob of stone-pelters out to harm them. It was in response to their call for help that a quick reaction team led by Major Leetul Gogoi of 53 Rashtriya Rifles had responded. That Gogoi and his team successfully defused a potentially nasty conflagration and prevented harm to any individual is the reality. One would like to believe that every Indian would support this outcome and condemn the stone-pelters, whose nefarious designs were thwarted. Where, however, there are serious differences of opinion is the means adopted to achieve this favourable outcome.

Let us, for once, try and look at the unfolding scene from Gogoi's and his team's perspective. On duty as a quick reaction team, they are fully aware of the tense situation prevailing in their area of operations. Recent casualties have occurred amongst both the security forces and the civil population. The team is fully alive to the fact that the local population is hostile to their presence, even with the recent video of a security personnel being taunted, mocked and pushed around fresh in their minds. They are equally conscious that this jawan was lucky to have got out alive since the slightest provocation either on his part or that of an over-enthusiastic trouble-maker amongst the crowd would have cost him his life. Lynching is the word that has of late been heard, but they are aware that beheading is also in the armoury of the silent backers of some of these stone-pelters.

More than any physical protection or the firearm that each team member carries, it is their physical and moral fibre, honed through years of training and sacrifice, that has resulted in them being considered fit by their superiors to undertake difficult missions like these amongst their disaffected fellow citizens. They do not question why they and their predecessors have been employed on internal security duties, not for fleeting crises situations but for decades on end even though this is not their primary role; or why they should bear abuse and humiliation from their own people when even the highest rank within the service must treat them with dignity and respect. Most of all, they do not understand why local political leaders, whose chestnuts they are attempting to pull out of the fire, have no hesitation in casting aspersions on them and their intent, or grudging the safeguards that a national law such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act provides to the soldiers.

Notwithstanding these and dozen such thoughts numbing their minds, they know that the professional and moral code that is second nature to them must prevail. They are conscious that they have to be able to react swiftly and correctly to life-threatening situations where their timing will decide whether they live or die. There is no time to ponder the niceties of different shades of opinion or to seek wise counsel from superiors. Morality in such situations denotes four essentials. That mission accomplishment even at the cost of one's life is paramount. That collateral damage must be minimized. That the lives and well-being of those under their command come before that of their own. And finally, the intent of action chosen must be in good faith. Judging by these, Gogoi has displayed professional leadership of a high order. Who knows, one day, even young Dar, having reflected on the events of the day, may recognize that his momentary loss of dignity actually saved the lives of many, including his own. By criticizing Gogoi and his team, we have failed not just them, but have also caused immense harm to the psyche of the armed forces of the republic of India.

One wishes that those who have rushed to form judgment would pause and reflect on what truly is happening beneath the surface in Jammu and Kashmir that, for instance, puts the likes of Gogoi and Dar in our headlines when both would be content getting on with their respective lives. Whilst many, especially political leaders, may like to erase from memory how it all began, the army as an institution can never do so as it has stoically borne the brunt of it. Not only has it faced the bullets of elements within our own people who are hostile to the country, but also the barbs of the institutions of democracy whose flames they are attempting to douse.

For Pakistan, Kashmir is both an unfinished business of Partition and a platform for rallying support for a clash of civilizations. The Pakistan army would not want the Kashmir issue resolved as it would pose a challenge to its dominance in Pakistan's policy towards India. While the seeds of the Kashmir insurgency date back to the 1970s after Pakistan's humiliating military defeat, critics of the army need reminding that the political strategy of rigging elections in 1987 and denying the people a government deserving of their support gave it a major fillip. The irony of such leaders today mouthing platitudes on behalf of the stone-pelters and for withdrawal of the AFSPA is not lost on the army. Finally, let us not close our eyes to the reality that Islamic fundamentalists are now exploiting the situation to their advantage.

There is, however, one editorial that recognizes that the army is fighting a hybrid war and states "[t]here is no argument that the Army, which is caught in a situation in which terrorists attempt to blend in with the civilian population, is fighting a difficult and unenviable battle. But the difficulties in fighting a hybrid war do not constitute a justification for the use of human shields, which is categorised as a war crime by the Geneva Conventions." It is another matter that the Geneva Conventions apply only to armed conflicts and even in this age of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, the international community has failed to reach universal agreement on the definition of terrorism. To throw the book at the Indian army is hence unfair, to say the least.

A RAND study of experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan titled "War by other Means" mentions that it is a mistake to regard counter-insurgency as just another form of warfare. "Insurgencies are movements in which opponents of established governing authorities use violence and other means to wrest the support of the population away from those authorities. Military force is but one instrument of COIN available for use in such contests, and it ought to be subordinate to a political strategy of offering the people a government deserving of their support."

The dismal vote percentage in the recent by-elections is a pointer that opponents of the established governing authorities appear to be gaining an upper hand, but save the military we appear to have no political strategy to offer to the people. Partisan politics will only strengthen the hands of inimical forces. Perennial use of the military has deeper ramifications. Perhaps the time is ripe for every political leader and party in the state to set aside personal, bipartisan or ideological considerations and face the larger challenge - that of offering the people a government deserving of their support. Hiding behind the army's apron strings and making a scapegoat of it when cornered is no more an option. It is a recipe for disaster.

So loud and one-sided has this debate become that even some army veterans appear overcome with remorse. Those not blinkered by pre-conceived liberal notions are perhaps seeing the first signs of lowering of the morale of the Indian army in the face of incessant psychological warfare mounted by a determined adversary, a warfare compounded by an under-confident polity and uninterested public. If this sounds alarmist, this is what the attorney-general told a bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and U.U. Lalit as recently as on April 20. Speaking on behalf of the army, he told the honourable bench that the soldiers could not be subjected to first information reports for carrying out anti-militancy operations in insurgency-prone areas such as Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur. He alleged that local bias in judicial inquiries conducted against the army in these regions have tarnished its image.

It was perhaps this frustration that the army chief was venting when he said that security forces in Jammu and Kashmir were facing higher casualties. He also warned the local youth against committing unfriendly acts as they would then be regarded as anti-nationals and treated as such. True to form, there were many who took umbrage at our so-called misguided youth being termed anti-national.

This writer believes that it is now time for our institutions of democracy to get real, because the message that one sees from the infamous picture is loud and clear - that is, for the sake of partisan politics a professional army is being lost. If ever the healing touch of the supreme commander of the armed forces were needed, it is now.

The author is a retired air marshal of the Indian Air Force