There is no evidence to support your claims. But their is plenty of evidence to show that Pakistani troops broke the GENEVA CONVENTION and fired at an IAF pilot who had ejected and shot out his parachute.
Would you be so kind to share this “plenty of evidence”?
I hope you wont link a blog from someone who doesn’t even have a clue about the place or the conflict or someone who is simply theorizing it.
I know so well how it works. Someone writes an article based on assumptions and his opinions (not necessarily backed by evidence) and then someone “reputable” (government/ major news network) picks it up, polishes and re-brands and sells it as proof . If you don’t understand what I am talking about then read about the origin of Iraqi dossier and how Washington and New York post were fed by the US government to build up the case for war (and now they are struggling to win back the reader’s confidence). Closer to your home is that “
News of the world” story.i.e. When it comes to the News media and governments, sadly “honesty is the second best policy” or not at all (that too if the truth comes out eventually).
Lets agree on one thing here, shell we? Avoid using subjective and arbitrary terms when talking about something so serious
I normally bypass the following terms when someone makes a claim with prefixes like;
Everyone knows
Plenty of evidence
Countless times
If there is indeed some substance in the story, I take a view and decide. otherwise I don’t even bother reading any further if its just another opinionated blog.
let me clarify that I also consider it immoral to shoot a bailed out pilot who is effectively a PoW.
1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.
2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.
Now lets analyse the death of Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja., when his Mig 21 was shutdown by the Pakistani air defence.
He was the escort of Mig 27 being flown by Flight lieutenant Nachiketa who was shot down (other accounts suggests engine flameout) and as Ajay made a pass to investigate around the wreckage of Nachi’s plane he was shot down too.
From here there are two differing counts, Indians allege that he was shot and killed after he had ejected from his plane. They base that on the post-mortem carried out after his body was returned to India. (what remains unclear is that whether his body was handed over directly or via Red cross?)
India termed it a cold blooded murder and a war crime and lodged protest with the Pakistani diplomat in Delhi during the Kargil conflict.
The Pakistan Army spokesman Brig Rashid Qurashi (later on Major General) at that time rubbished the Indian claim saying that a high ranking pilot was of much greater value alive than dead and it made no sense for any regular army to murder a POW, he gave the example of flight Lieutenant Nachiketa who was amply looked after and was visited by ICRC during his 8 days in Pakistan.
Under the circumstances, the first and second rules apply (with a condition) that after bailing out, during his decent and after landing he didn’t engage in any hostile act against the Pakistani troops. If he didn’t in both cases (decent & landing) then he had immunity and his death would have been a war crime and breach of the protocol I, Article 42 of Geneva conventions.
I must admit that I am not aware that IAF pilots carry side arms as a part of their combat suit when flying. All other Air force pilots do to prepare for a scenario where they are downed and have to wait for the rescue team or plan their own independent escape. So I can only assume if just like PAF pilots, if Squadron Leader Ajay also had a weapon and engaged with the Pakistani troops then they had the right to kill him. Even having a weapon on him was enough for the ROE to shoot him, similar to US military ROE if the subject has a weapon on him then he needs to be stopped with deadly force.
There have been many such accounts that have been even captured in Holy wood blockbusters where the Iraqi soldier or soldiers although apparently coming out of their bunkers to surrender were still carrying their AK-47s and were shot dead by the approaching American soldiers because they took a view that these guys wanted to continue to fight.
Gaurdian quotes Qurashi as saying that Pakistani soldiers only opened up fire once they themselves came under fire.
I was in Islamabad at that time and was eagerly following the story of these two planes that were shot down. There were rumours flying about the circumstances under which Ajay died, claiming that he was refusing to surrender and even managed to kill or injure some troops until they pinned him down and killed him in retaliation. Again there was no official explanation or proof about what happened.
The third rule doesn’t apply to him as he was not part of any paratroopers assigned to airdrop and engage in confrontation with the enemy after landing.
As for Nachiketa, he parachuted safely was taken prisoner by the Pakistani patrol and flown to Skardu and was kept under the conditions that far exceed the regulations regarding the treatment of POWs..
Once his initial interrogations were done, he had same privileges as an officer (under captivity) being kept in officers mess and was looked after by the staff detailed for him. He was handed over to Red Cross authorities in Pakistan and eventually he was repatriated with India.
Finally I must say, We all are free to make our judgements although they might be affected by our affiliations and our opinions which is understandable but we shouldn’t loose the sight for finding out the truth. Sadly no one perused this case and the circumstances remain a mystery and counts doubtful and contested by either parties. what could have helped was if Pakistani authorities had conducted their own post -mortem and shared with the Red cross before handing the body over to India.
If indeed there was some foul play involved then Pakistan would have simply expressed inability to produce the body blaming the difficult terrain and termed him as MPD (missing presumed dead).
The only closure to this event, for the sake of the family of SL Ajay is that there is an independent commission setup that is agreed upon by both governments or India makes a formal complaint in the UN sends in a team which interviews the people, checks the post mortem reports and makes the decision about it. Without the body it might be inconclusive but the Pakistani soldiers that were involved in engaging with Ajay or bringing back his body might help the investigators with reaching a verdict.
