A T Thiruvengadam, based on his

experience in the Northeast in the State police as well as in the Intelligence Bureau

feels that

The circumstances that necessitated the deployment of the Army on these duties still exist.

He ends his piece with the following suggestion:

The panel would have done justice to its task if it had come up with a measure to ensure the presence of the Army under some enabling legislation without contradicting the democratic norms of the country.

While the fact that we are forced deploy army to quell insurgency is deplorable, presence of army without contradicting the democratic norms sounds oxymoronic to me.

Finally, there is a subtle indication that before protests, the Armed forces were not following and observing all legal requirements:

Allegations against armed forces excesses came to the fore in the eighties when the valley was riddled with terrorist activities and the armed forces were inducted. The people of the valley resented the search and seizure operations undertaken by the Army.

Swift response and timely remedial measures undertaken by the force commanders and the administration on a few allegations against the Army and other paramilitary forces kept the people somewhat satisfied. A few measures were also initiated at that time. They were: a) co-opting a police officer by the security forces columns when undertaking search and seizure operations; b) carrying out interrogations jointly with the police while the accused/suspect is in police custody; and c) following and observing all legal requirements of the case.

On a different note, take a look at this article from the same open page edition; the article uses abnormal(-ity) in the context of homosexuality six times, without mentioning the basis for such an assertion even once. What is happening to the Hindu? How do these shallow articles are getting published? Is there nobody who will articulate the same positions that these authors take but with more depth?