That a court of inquiry was ordered only after the Army Chief was quizzed by the media, so too Gen Bipin Rawat’s promise of exemplary action “if” any rules were infringed, points to a bid at damage-containment.

For the Army’s failure to issue an immediate clarification on one of its officers being detained by the police after an incident also involving a young local woman in Srinagar would have, even otherwise, set tongues wagging.

Sinister angles came into play when it was established that the officer was Major Leetul Gogoi (Rashtriya Rifles), embroiled in the “human shield” controversy last year.

At the best of times the military tends to protect its own: this time the reluctance to immediately come clean could have been influenced by the officer having been awarded a commendation-certificate, while most others (within the uniformed community too) were flaying the incident. Orders for action had to come from “the top” ~ hence the belated response.

The matter has snowballed, more demonstrations could follow. At a point in time when the forces are “going slow” in a goodwill gesture, fresh controversy was eminently avoidable. Surely Army officers are not so dumb as to be unaware of governmental initiatives?

Reports doing the rounds are highly conflicting, speculative. Maybe no criminality has been established, but Army regulations appear infringed by the officer checking into a private hotel, and the young woman ~ her age is the subject of dispute ~ going there to meet him.

She has told the police her visit was voluntary, that she had “met” the officer on social media (he had used an alias at first) and they were friends. Her mother, however, has told the police their house had been raided twice: they had been warned to keep quiet about it.

Had the receptionist at the hotel not been suspicious/apprehensive the visit might have passed off incident-free. Yet are Army personnel permitted civil relationships in a conflict-zone? An officer seeking a “little fun” might be understandable, but hardly excusable in such a strained environment.

The officer posing as a touring businessman when he made an online hotel reservation raises queries of its own. Any suggestion that he was undertaking an under-cover mission would be ridiculed by the ease with which he was identified, after all last year his photograph had been splashed in the newspapers and he had paraded himself on television. When detained by the police he never claimed he had been “honey-trapped”, so even that alibi would appear thin.

It is for the Army to decide on how to proceed in the matter. A COI is routine, yet the public is also entitled to a full explanation and assurance that officers will behave. Else the several horror stories being spread will acquire fresh credence among an alienated populace. Can the “brass” afford to live with that?