Pellet gun victim Sahil Lochab wanted to join the police
19-year-old who finally managed to have his FIR lodged after intervention by Rahul Gandhi, was one of at least 10 injured in Delhi on 20 July
Sahil Lochab (19), a resident of Najafgarh in southwest Delhi, wanted to join the police when he was injured by pellets fired at Jantar Mantar on 20 July. He underwent surgery to remove some of the pellets at AIIMS Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, and was informed that there was only a "one per cent chance" of vision returning to his injured eye, as the pupil was damaged.
A student of Delhi University’s School of Open Learning, he is pursuing distance-learning while preparing for competitive examinations. He had attended the protests at Jantar Mantar before and went back for the 'Sansad Chalo (march to Parliament)' on 20 July saying it was important and would help his studies. Once he was injured, he was taken to Lady Hardinge Medical College and then transferred to the AIIMS trauma centre.
On Thursday, 20 August, former Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale had accused AIIMS of refusing to disclose the number of persons it had treated with pellet gun injuries, claiming ‘it might directly or indirectly lead to identification of the patient’. How does disclosing the number of victims treated enable “identification of the person”, Gokhale had wondered in a social media post. 'Why are Modi-Shah so desperate to bury information about pellet gun victims from the Delhi protests?' he asked.
Gokhale, however, did receive information from two other hospitals in Delhi, which confirmed treating at least 10 pellet gun victims injured at Jantar Mantar. While Lochab has come forward to register an FIR demanding an investigation, others appear to have chosen discretion and remained silent. The number, however, calls the bluff on claims that no pellet gun was fired at Jantar Mantar and that only two rounds were fired.
This was the first known instance of security forces using pellet guns on civilians in Delhi. One of the 80 injured protesters, identified as Shaikh Irshad Mansoori, underwent surgery at Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC) to remove a metal pellet lodged under his eye. A hospital source said the pellets that have injured the two were of metal, not plastic, reported The Hindu. Yet another victim, 21-year-old Sakshi, had to be put on a ventilator at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, which claimed after a week that she was out of the ventilator and was breathing on her own.
The stout denials by Delhi Police and Union minister Kiren Rijiju that Delhi Police did not fire pellet guns at Jantar Mantar is technically correct because pellet guns are part of the gear of the Rapid Action Force (RAF), the specialised anti-riot unit under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), which was deployed around Jantar Mantar and remained under operational control of Delhi Police at the time of the protest march. So, strictly speaking, RAF would have fired the pellets.
While Delhi Police stubbornly refused to register an FIR until it relented under pressure, a general diary entry was reportedly filed at Parliament Street police station which revealed that the RAF did fire two rounds from an anti-riot gun on the directions of a deputy commissioner of police (DCP) ranked officer, reported Vijaita Singh of The Hindu.
The diary entry says that, to control the crowd during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest, 'on the orders of Zone-1, DCP, Jantar Mantar', the RAF deputy commandant fired '55 rounds of non-electrical shell, 15 rounds of electrical shell, five tear smoke granite, two rounds using ballistic cartridges with plastic pellets from an anti-riot gun'.
Even more damning was the report that a senior RAF official had highlighted 'serious deficiencies' in RAF behaviour during the march at a review meeting. RAF inspector-general Seema Dhundhia reportedly said “some videos available on social media showed incidents of RAF personnel using unnecessary force on persons who had already separated from the crowd, deliberately making people fall, and assaulting persons going out of the barricade. Such incidents are completely contrary to the established work culture and image of RAF and are not justified under any circumstances”.
Noting the prevalence of social media and mobile cameras in modern times, she cautioned RAF personnel that every operation remains under public scrutiny.