A premier prescription for tackling terrorism
KIRPAL DHILLON
|
THE STARK REALITY IS THAT THE INDIAN SECURITY STRUCTURE HAS DEVELOPED ITS OWN FUNCTIONAL DYNAMICS, LARGELY UNMINDFUL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVES AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS
|
"FIGHT TERRORISM, don't trample human rights... you should be firm but humane, effective and efficient, in control but unobtrusive and function within the parameters of law and stick to human rights," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly advised the security forces in Srinagar recently. Universally respected for his intellectual integrity, the Prime Minister, no doubt, meant every word of what he said. But how far would the prime ministerial counsel carry conviction with the force commanders remains in serious doubt. For, the perceptions at the cutting edge levels are vastly different.
Even a cursory acquaintance with the nitty-gritty of counter-insurgency operations being carried out in various parts of the country over the last many decades would fully expose the extent to which lawlessness and abuse of human rights have become synonymous with success in counter terrorism strategies. For the security forces, combating terrorism and insurgency is no different from their other battles, whether against an external enemy or internal malefactors.
Hardly a secret
Most Indian politicians know little and care even less about the mainsprings of extremism and militancy, impelling some sections of the people to take to terrorist violence. What is even worse, they have but a very hazy idea about the complexities and mechanics of law enforcement in a highly fragmented polity, especially when the security forces are also blatantly politicised and communalised.
Many highly placed members of the Indian establishment have spoken of the sanctity of human rights and the rule of law on numerous occasions only to turn a blind eye when security forces routinely employ unwarranted and unlawful force, not only against lawless elements but also against the civilian population, while combating organised crime, terrorism and militancy, thus gravely violating human rights and the rule of law.
That the security forces resorted to highly offensive, illicit and brutal tactics in tackling the Sikh militancy in Punjab was hardly a secret from the powers that be and yet almost the entire Indian establishment and the media went overboard in heaping praises upon the Punjab police and their chief. That the apex court was later to hand out stinging censures in a few cases of brazen misuse of powers and lawless conduct of middle level police officers, out of countless such accusations, is more a tribute to the tenacity of some intrepid rights activists and the objective majesty of the judiciary than to a responsive polity. It was commonly known that in nonchalantly crossing the boundaries of law, the security forces enjoyed complete endorsement from the highest political executive.
The mandate to the police was to wipe out militancy "within the law, if possible, outside it, if necessary." Despite the prolonged agitations in Manipur in protest against the excesses of the security forces, the situation remains much the same all over the Northeast. The mounting incidence of custodial violence, not only in counter-insurgency operations but even in normal policing assignments in metropolitan and other areas and the increasing reliance of state authorities on the so-called encounter specialists to secure urban neighbourhoods tell their own story.
The stark reality is that the Indian security structure has developed its own functional dynamics, largely unmindful of the constitutional imperatives and human rights considerations. Being largely a product of mid 19th century mindsets and legislation and thus in clear dissonance with the ethos of a representative democracy, it could not have been otherwise.
The culture of impunity and unresponsiveness in Indian security forces is an unfortunate leftover from the colonial era, which reflects outmoded concepts of law enforcement and order maintenance. Unless the basic laws governing police functioning and accountability are radically updated so as to conform to the needs of a democratic polity, no amount of pious sermons will help promote humane and civilised policing norms, however sincere they might be.
The Prime Minister has already set in motion an extensive process of administrative and police reforms but the progress is painfully slow, mainly because of ingenious resistance from sundry vested interests, with a stake in perpetuating the colonial era practices and systems. It is vital, therefore, to put in place a committed monitoring system, directly under the Prime Minister, to ensure that the reform processes are completed in a time-bound manner and to prevent the entire exercise being subverted by anti-reformist lobbies.
(The writer is a former Director General of Police, Punjab)
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
