The modern thinking Indian

In the fight with terrorism, there is a thin line between what is justified for national security and what is a violation of human rights. Sometimes, this gets muddled up. An example is when sometime back, the UP police were shown to be shooting down a dacoit when he was coming out with hands in the air. There was a lot of protests and condemnation over the way the police shot him in cold blood. It was only when a second video was released (which showed that the dacoit had earlier offered to give himself up, but had shot the policeman who went to accept the surrender) that the reputation of the police was restored. In many cases, the police and security agencies have been accused of detaining suspects without proper records, and subjecting them to torture to get information. A law and order approach is that the police should document their arrest, and file for detention in front of the court.
One case that caused a huge amount of controversy was the Batla House case. In this case, the national capital got the news, that in a locality in South East Delhi, the police had raided a house and killed some suspects in a shootout, and in the encounter, a celebrated cop had also got killed. This was in the aftermath of the Indian Mujhaideen cases where serial bomb blasts were happening in various cities, and the Government was under huge pressure to show some progress in the case. Almost immediately, there was suspicion that this was a cooked up encounter, with certain aspects of the case causing questions.
Politicians of different hues jumped on the case, given that it involved police vs. minority issues, with even ruling party politicians jumping in to get the case investigated by all manner of agencies. The Delhi and Central Governments however stood firm on the stand that this was a genuine encounter, and the people killed were actually terrorists. Finally, in a court case, the High Court ordered an investigation by the National Human Rights Commission (something that the police still opposed). In what marks almost an end to the case, the NHRC has declared that the encounter was genuine (link to article):

National Human Rights Commission on Wednesday gave clean chit to Delhi police in Batla House encounter case. "We are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the material placed before us, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of human rights by action of the police", the NHRC said in its 30 page report on the encounter in September last year.
Encounter specialist Delhi Police Inspector M C Sharma was killed during the police action against suspected terrorists on September 19, 2008 in the aftermath of serial blasts in Batla House locality in the national capital. The court had directed the enquiry on a plea of the NGO, Act Now For Harmony and Democracy, that questioned the police version of the encounter. Two suspected Indian Mujahideen terrorists who were killed were identified as Atif Amin and Mohd Sajid. Two other IM suspects Mohd Saif and Zeeshan were arrested from the Batla House area.

This is certainly not the end of the controversy, since there was a report that some politicians and family members of the accused did not accept this report, claiming it to be false. However, the general public, which anyhow forgets things easily enough, will not remember the Batla House encounter for much longer.

Labels: Delhi, Encounter, India, Inquiry, Investigation, Murder, Police, Politics, Security, Terrorism, Violence

There are several sections of India that are semi-controlled by the Red Army, by the Naxalites. When I mean semi-controlled, it essentially means that they are regions where Naxalites and Maoists can move around without much fear of being encountered by security forces, and where they can in turn strike at state presence such as Government officers and police stations. Lalgarh is one such region, located in Bengal that seems to be in the control of ultra-left forces (need to make the distinction, since West Bengal is actually ruled by a Left / Communist party which is the enemy of the ultra-left forces).
Many states have declared the Maoists as an illegal force, with West Bengal being a notable exception (maybe because it would be hard for a Communist party to justify calling another Communist leaning organization as illegal). However, it really cannot continue to have a condition where a region of the state is a no-go zone for arms of the State. If they let such a situation continue, the CPM sets itself up to be a target of media all over the country, they let a situation fester where the Maoists have time to consolidate and again target other CPM regions, they are under pressure from the Center to take some action, and so on. So, finally, the combined forces of the state police, specialized force called COBRA, and the para-military forces seem to be having success in their operation to the extent that the Maoists leaders are willing to talk peace now (link to article):

Maoist leader Koteswar Rao said on Saturday the West Bengal Government should stop the police operation in Lalgarh and hold talks with the people to find a solution to their problems. "If the Left Front government wants to have discussion with the people of Lalgarh, the operation by the police and security forces against them should end by this afternoon," Rao, a politburo member of the CPI(Maoist), told a TV channel.
Referring to the ongoing joint operation by the state police and the para-military forces, he advised the Left Front government "not to dance to the tune of the Prime Minister or the Union Home Minister".

No matter what the timing of making this security operation a success really is, the fact remains that in their hearts, the governments of most states infested by ultra-left violence know what the basic problems are - not enough welfare, abject poverty and exploitation (especially of tribals), wide-spread corruption among the government apparatus, no real security and law and order, and numerous other reasons that give a lot of support base to the ultra-left forces (most of whom are people with a similar background to these oppressed folks). Governments however do very little to address these concerns and actually provide development support (and in fact accept that there is a huge amount of siphoning of development money through the government apparatus).
As long as Governments are not able to make the necessary development steps and show their success in doing so, they will be unable to stop these Naxalite forces. That would be a real show since these ultra-left forces do not really have a credible plan to increase development, and instead believe in a class struggle that only turns the poorer classes into canon fodder (remember the other struggler, Prabhakaran who killed so many of his fellow Tamils but did nothing concrete to better the lot of his people).

Labels: Communist, Development, Governance, Maoists, Police, Reform, Security, Violence, Welfare

Protests have been seen as a sign of legitimate dissent, about raising the voice of ordinary people against some action; in many cases, a protest is about having a good outlet for the frustrations of people. However, it is also true that protests have been hijacked by people with vested interests, and in many cases by lumpen elements. So, for every scene of people walking peacefully with placards, you have scenes of youth rampaging, burning vehicles, disturbing the lives and economic well-being of city-dwellers (think about the daily wage earner or streetside vendor who loses out on the daily income on the day that a protest shuts down all other activity).
As we have seen in the past, the Government, of whom it is expected that they ensure law and order on the street, does not intervene in many cases. In some cases, the protests have been called by the ruling party, or by other elements (which the Government does not really want to put down). Consider the case of the Gurjar agitation of last year in Delhi; in broad daylight, the media could see that the agitators were blocking major roads and burning vehicles, and the police had no interest in actually preventing them from doing such things.
In the past, the Supreme Court (and other courts) has actually levied fines on political parties who have sponsored such violent agitations, but not consistently, and of course, there has been very little other prosecution of the people involved in such violence. However, the Supreme Court has now come out with clear guidelines on how to identify the people involved in such violence (link to article):

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday put in place stringent guidelines to deal with violent agitations that mandate the police to videograph each and every protest to bring to book mischief mongers who take advantage of a crowd and destroy public and private properties. The Bench, while putting the suggestions of the two committees as guidelines, said its directions would operate till Parliament or assemblies enacted suitable laws replacing the apex court's directions for prevention of vandalism of the kind seen during the Gujjar agitation in 2007.
The new guidelines include a provision that says those seen indulging in violence in video footage would be presumed to be the offenders and the onus would shift on them to show that they are innocent. Focusing on compensating the people whose properties were damaged by the protestors, the apex court said not only should the violent protestors pay the cost of damaged property, but they be also saddled with exemplary cost.

This was also a subtle reminder to the authorities that it is their duty to enforce law and order, which includes both preventing people from breaking the law, and prosecuting those who do break the law. One has to wait and see how the actual enforcement of the law proceeds.

Labels: Agitations, Court, India, Judicial, Law, Police, Politics, Punishment, Responsibility, Security, Violence

For the first time in the country, the term 'Hindu terrorist' has come into common usage. It all started with the Malegaon blasts of September 29, outside the office of SIMI where 6 people died in the explosion, and many others were injured. As it turns out, this was not a case where terrorists, inspired by the word of radical Islam, had committed the crime. While the blast is under probe, all information that has been revealed so far by the ATS, and by the press, is that this was in the nature of a retaliatory attack (retaliation for the bomb attacks carried out by terrorists inspired by radical thought). While investigation is being carried out, this incident and the investigation has already led to a huge amount of hue and cry.
For once, both the BJP and the Shiv Sena are on the defensive. One of the main accused, the Sadhavi, Pragya Singh Thakur, was apparently a fiery speaker who was capable of rousing the spirits of people; incidentally, she was also a former national executive president of the Durga Vahini, and has been shown in the same photo as Rajnath Singh and the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister. The BJP has disowned her and her actions, claiming that this was done after she left the organization (and this part may be true). However, many constituents of the Sangh Parivaar are not happy with this and are pitching for the BJP to support the accused. The Shiv Sena is in total support of the accused (one can always consider the Shiv Sena to have a sense of irrationality in their actions).
This is where the BJP should have been a party with a difference. Having a plank of National Security would mean that the party should stand firm against anyone who indulges in matters such as riots and bomb blasts. In this case, the refusal of the party to take a firm stand against the alleged bomb plotters means that the actions of the party are similar to the actions of the Congress, Samajwadi Party and are personally very disappointing. No matter what the reason, there cannot be any justification for supporting any brand of terrorists, whether they be terrorist inspired by radical Islamic theology or Hindu terrorists inspired by some concept of revenge. The bigger worry (based on current police reports) is that a senior army officer is involved, against their duty of protecting the nation:

Public prosecutor Ajay Misar said in the court that Purohit had attended most of the meetings organised by others accused at Kashmir, Pune, Bhopal, Nashik, and Deolali. "Since he is a senior army officer, he could have been the source for the RDX used in the bomb. We also have evidence that he distributed money to several people through his organisation through cheques and cash. The financial transactions are through hawala as well," said Misar, adding, "Purohit also trained several youths in bomb making."
Those arrested also include retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay and former Durga Vahini national executive president sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur. The ATS completed all the formalities regarding the arrest of Lt Col Purohit — the first instance of an armyman being booked for a terror act — on Tuesday evening. Purohit came in contact with Upadhyay when he was posted at Nashik as liaison unit officer. Sources said he used the Nashik stint to fraternise with the extremists in various radical Hindu outfits and to draw them into Abhinav Bharat fold.

It is incumbent to nip such attacks and planning in the bud. The country already faces enough problems from terrorists and separatists in many corners of the country without having more people join this front (and there are terrorists who are Hindu as well - the ULFA, Naxalities, and many others). The BJP and other parties should take the lead in cutting such misguided people from getting public support and that there is no sympathy for them. Else, there is no justification in the BJP blaming people for showing support for the terrorists killed in the Jamia Nagar shootout in Delhi.

Labels: Army, BJP, Congress, Hypocrisy, Investigation, Military, Police, Politics, Responsibility, Security, Terrorism, Violence

In India, the police derive their powers from laws enacted during the British time. These laws were meant to enforce the power of the state (and the rulers), and this sentiment drives the power and role of the police. Throughout India, if citizens are polled over the role of the police, you will find it hard to find people who have positive views. This is also my personal view; my interaction with and observations of the police have convinced me that they are generally inclined to enforce the law and protect the rule of law (and there are many honest and great police officers as well), but they also see the law and the threat of force as a way to get benefits for themselves and their masters (who certainly are not the citizens of this country). Further, as every small trader / streetside vendor / other small businessman would volunteer, if you do not keep the local policemen happy, then things will be tough:

AHMEDABAD: Supreme Court has asked additional director-general of police Rajan Priyadarshi to pay Rs 8 lakh towards compensation to the person he assaulted blinding him in one eye, during a demonstration in 1987.
The incident took place on February 1, 1987, when Priyadarshi and then inspector RJ Yadav resorted to lathicharge during a protest demonstration. In this, a Congress leader, who has recently joined BJP, Dr Prafull Thaker was injured and lost his right eye. He moved the court seeking compensation for the injury.

This must be a shock to the police officer, since the police assume that the right to use any amount of force during suppressing a protest is their given right (all the way from the brutal attack on Lala Lajpat Rai during the rule of the British), and the fact that a court could force them to pay compensation was unheard of. In the more advanced nations, powers given to the police are with responsibility and they can be prosecuted for excesses.

Labels: Compensation, Court, Law, Police, Punishment, Violence