New Delhi: While multiple instances of pellet gun injuries have emerged following the police and Rapid Action Force crackdown on peaceful protesters in Delhi on July 20, and a viral video of a policeman in Bihar’s Siwan firing an AK-47 rifle subsequently led to his suspension, the Union government has continued to maintain that “koi goli chali nahi” i.e. that no bullets were fired on youth protesters last month. Despite ample physical evidence in the form of victim testimonies, hospital records, Right to Information (RTI) responses, police diaries and a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) inquiry, two Union ministers – minister of state (MoS) PMO Jitendra Singh in parliament, and health minister J.P. Nadda at a press conference – have separately made the claim that no shots were fired. This has raised questions about whether the government is simply hiding behind semantics – using “goli” or shots as a stand-in for live ammunition even though the terms have previously been used to describe firing by pellet guns.In fact, earlier responses by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in parliament show that the government has not contradicted the use of the term ‘firing’ while referring to pellet gun use. It has also used the word pellet or rubber bullets while referring to pellet guns and while the CRPF itself has used the word “firing” while referring to the weapon in a court filing.An RTI response has shown that 10 people were injured by pellet guns during the parliament march on July 20. In Bihar’s Siwan, a departmental inquiry has been ordered against a policeman seen firing an AK-47 rifle during protests there. While the Delhi Police has denied the use of pellet guns, an inquiry initiated by the CRPF on July 24 revealed that an Rapid Action Force (RAF) jawan deployed at Connaught Place on July 20 during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led “Chalo Sansad” march, fired at least seven rounds from his pellet gun, five of which hit peaceful protesters, The Indian Express reported. Prior to this, The Wire had earlier confirmed the use of pellet guns against unarmed protesters in a report. Following the protest in Delhi, hospital records and victim accounts showed serious injuries have been reported including of 25-year-old Irshad Sheikh, 19-year-old Delhi University student Sahil Lochab and a 28-year-old journalist who works with Outlook magazine. Separately, a 32-year-old woman named Nutan also sustained gunshot injuries in Delhi. Despite this, MoS PMO Singh on July 29 said in the Lok Sabha in response to leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi’s questions on whether Union home minister Amit Shah issued shooting orders that it had been “clarified repeatedly that no firing took place; only tear gas was used.” “Jab goli chali hi nai, toh aadhesh dene ka sawal paida hi nahi hota. (Since no firing took place, the question of issuing an order does not arise). And the authority to give such an order rests with the magistrate, not the minister,” Singh said in the House.Subsequently Congress MP K.C. Venugopal has moved a notice for a privilege motion against Singh and said that his statement in the House stands in “contradiction to the facts on the ground.”At a press conference on August 10, Nadda, while targeting Gandhi, said his intention was to disrupt parliament and that he was “misleading the country that shots were fired in Jantar Mantar.”“This is why in the last 15 days he has been disrupting parliament and trying to start a discussion on the Jantar Mantar. Today when the discussion has been agreed upon, he is misleading the country that shots were fired in Jantar Mantar, whereas no shots were fired. The home minister is ready to speak on every issue,” said Nadda.When MHA did not contradict ‘firing’ in relation to pellet guns in parliamentWhile the Union ministers have said that there was no firing, despite reported instances of pellet gun injuries, the MHA has previously in parliament not contradicted the use of the term “firing” in relation to pellet guns. On March 27, 2018 in response to a written question in the Lok Sabha asking whether the “CRPF continue to use pellet-firing shotguns in Jammu and Kashmir” and “if so, the details thereof during the last three years”, then MoS Home Affairs, Hansraj Gangaram Ahir responded in his written reply as “Yes”.“Yes, Madam. Government of India had constituted an Expert Committee on 26.07.2016 to explore other possible alternatives to Pellet Guns as non-lethal weapons. The Committee has submitted its report and the recommendations have been taken into account by the Government for appropriate implementation,” Ahir’s written response said.In the same written reply, Ahir also uses the word “firing” in response to Singh Deo’s question on whether any special training is given to paramilitary personnel to use the pellet-firing shotgun against civilians, its details, and the details of whether there is any Standard operating Procedure (SoP) for using the pellet-firing shotgun against civilians.“3-days special training for use of less lethal weapons/ ammunitions is conducted in which theory/ practical on riot drill, weapons/ equipments, law & order in J&K, firing practice with less lethal weapon/ equipment are imparted,” wrote Ahir. MHA’s 2018 reply confirming the CRPF’s use of continuing use of pellet guns and also using the term “firing.”The Hindi version of the same written response, goes on to use the word “golibari abhyas” to refer to firing practice with respect to pellet gun training.MHA’s 2018 reply in Hindi that goes on to use the word “golibari abhyas” to refer to firing practice with respect to pellet gun training.Exactly a year prior to this written reply in the Lok Sabha, Ahir on March 28, 2017 again did not contradict the use of the words “fired” when asked about pellet gun use in Jammu and Kashmir.In response to a question by K. Ashok Kumar who sought to know whether the “Government is planning to take a relook at the non-lethal weapons used by security forces as scores of people have lost their vision due to shots fired from pellet guns in the J&K valley” and its details, Ahir did not object to the use of the word “fired” and instead referred to the recommendations of the expert committee set up by the Union government to explore alternatives to pellet guns.“Government of India constituted an Expert Committee on 26.07.2016 to explore other possible alternatives to Pellet Guns as non-lethal weapons,” said Ahir in his written reply.Ahir said that following the committee’s recommendations, the government had decided that security forces will resort to measures including “PAVA-Chilli (Shells and Grenades), STUN- LAC (Shells and Grenades) and Tear Smoke Shells to disperse the rioters” and only if these measures prove to be ineffective “use of pellet guns may be resorted to”.“The Committee has submitted its report and the recommendations have been taken into account by the Government for appropriate implementation. Accordingly, the Government has decided that the security forces will resort to various measures such as using PAVA-Chilli (Shells and Grenades), STUN- LAC (Shells and Grenades) and Tear Smoke Shells to disperse the rioters. However, if these measures prove to be ineffective in dispersing of rioters, use of pellet guns may be resorted to,” said Ahir.In its 2017 reply, the government did not contradict the use of the words “fired” when asked about pellet gun use in Jammu and Kashmir and instead referred to the recommendations of the expert committee set up by the centre to explore alternatives to pellet guns.When MHA used the word bullets for pellet gun in parliamentIn another written reply in parliament December 19, 2017 the MHA detailed the use of force in response to a question whether it will introduce less lethal plastic bullets to be used against protesters in Jammu and Kashmir.In his written reply, Ahir said that as per the SOP adopted by Jammu and Kashmir Police including law enforcing agencies for dispersal of unlawful assembly, “less lethal weapons should be used as per the established use-of-force policy”.“The use of force should be guided by objectives of restoring peace, dispersal of violent unlawful assembly with use of such force as is required to minimise the casualty but without compromising safety for Law Enforcement Elements and peace loving citizens,” said Ahir.“The hierarchy of usage of forces inter-alia includes use of rubber bullet/ plastic bullets.”When CRPF used the word firing while referring to pellet guns in courtNot just in parliament, the CRPF itself has used the word firing while referring to pellet guns in court. The RAF is a specialised unit of the CRPF, under the Union Home Ministry.In an affidavit in the Jammu and Kashmir high court, the CRPF in August 2016 said that it had fired over 3,000 pellet cartridges, each containing 450 metallic balls in the protests in the aftermath of the death of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani.The affidavit was submitted in the court while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns following several instances of blinding by the use of the guns. The CRPF had then said that while SOPs had required that the pellet guns introduced in 2010, be aimed above the waist, the situation during a prevailing law and order incident is dynamic, where “precise aimed fire” becomes difficult.“In such a situation, sometimes it is difficult to go in for precise aimed fire at a moving, bending and running target,” the affidavit had said. It had also said while defending the use of pellet guns that without it, “CRPF personnel would have no recourse in extreme situations but to open fire with rifles, which may cause more fatalities”.