Update: The Narendra Modi government on Monday changed its stance over its stance on the issue of Indian Army Captain Saurabh Kalia, who was tortured by the pakistan Army in 1999 during the Kargil conflict, and said it would pursue the case if the Supreme Court permitted it to do so. The turn over came after the report of centre not moving CJI circulated in media earlier the day.
New Delhi: In a huge blow to Kargil martyrs, the Central government has refused to move the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the brutal killing of Kargil war hero Saurabh kalia and his men by Pakistan, in a gross violation of the Geneva Convention.
Captain Saurabh Kalia, Sepoys Arjunram Baswana, Mula Ram Bidiasar, Naresh Singh Sinsinwar, Bhanwar Lal Bagaria and Bhika Ram Mudh of 4 Jat Regiment were among the first casualties during the 1999 Kargil war. They were captured by Pakistani troops during a reconnaissance patrol in the treacherous mountainous terrain in May 1999, brutally tortured and killed.
In gross violation of the Geneva Convention the Pakistani Army subjected Captain Kalia and his soldiers to horrendous torture during which the bravehearts’ ear drums were pierced with hot iron rods, eyes punctured and genitals cut off. The autopsy of the bodies also revealed that they were burned with cigarettes butts. Their limbs were also chopped off, teeth broken and skull fractured during the torture. Even their nose and lips were cut off.
The Narendra Modi government has said that moving the ICJ against Pakistan in the matter is not ‘practical’. The Centre’s reaction comes after Captain Kalia’s family had demanded for an international probe in the Supreme Court.
The decision by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government is likely to receive flak as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) while in Opposition, had slammed the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government for not acting against Pakistan.
The UPA during its tenure had maintained that it could not move the ICJ as Pakistan will not permit it. India feels that it was a bilateral issue and it has always maintained that there should be “non-interference” by ICJ in “bilateral or internal” matter.