MUMBAI: "To ask for proof of the Indian Army’s surgical strikes is not only ridiculous but would help the enemy country as they would benefit by knowing our warfare tactics,” special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said.
Nikam, man who tried the Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks case, cited a precedent in which the courts stepped in and stopped any possibility of the tactics used by the National Security Guard (NSG) commandos in that operation from being revealed from the witness box.
With the Indian Army submitting video tapes of its Sept. 29 operation against terror launch pads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, a nationwide debate has been triggered on whether or not make the footage public to nail Pakistan’s claim that the strike never took place.
Nikam said it would be imprudent to reveal the footage. He recalled a similar situation during the trial of terrorist Ajmal Kasab after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. A special court ordered Nikam to examine the NSG commandos as witnesses so as to know how they countered the terror attack. But Nikam refused to call the commandos to the witness box.
The Maharashtra government and NSG challenged the special court’s order and the Bombay High Court ruled that it was not in the public interest to reveal evidence such as the strategy adopted by the NSG in the fight against terrorists, Nikam told PTI on Thursday.
The High Court ruled that the special court’s order was “erroneous and wrong”.
Drawing a parallel with that case, Nikkam said the demand for release of the video tapes submitted by the Indian Army to the union governmentis "illegal and unjustified" as it would compromise the security of the country.
Political figures such as Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Nirupam have been demanding release of the footage and even questioning the government’s attempt to draw political mileage from the operation. Congress spokesperson Sanjay Jha pointed out today that there were similar such strikes during the UPA’s tenure but there never was a question of trying to take political ownership of them.
Under the Civil Defence Act of 1968, the central government may make rules prohibiting the printing and publication of any documents containing matters prejudicial to civil defence. Even though these rules cannot be argued in the court of law, they do need to be put forth by the Parliament. Thus, the ball is in the Prime Minister's court.
Referring to the political controversy over the footage, Nikam said, "A few persons who are asking for proof of the surgical strikes by India are grabbing headlines in the Pakistani media. Are they really aware of the implications of what they are demanding?"