A SHAMEFUL NATIONAL SECURITY BREACH

The events which unfolded on the morning of 5 January 2022, over a period of five hours, are indeed very troubling. India’s Prime Minister was on an official visit to Punjab where he was to  pay homage at the National Martyrs Memorial at Hussainiwala and thereafter lay the foundation stone for the PGIMER’s satellite centre in Ferozepur along with some other projects. Later in the day he was to address an election rally. The Prime Minister landed at the Bhatinda Air Force base at 10.30 am, but could not move by helicopter to Hussainiwala due to bad weather. Prime Minister Modi thereafter decided to continue the journey by road via the Faridkot-Moga Highway, a distance of 120 km, which takes about two hours. 

Leaving Bhatinda at 10.50 am, the PMs cavalcade proceeded smoothly without incident for over a 100 kilometres, when a large group of protesters, squatting on the flyover near Piareana village in Ferozepur district prevented them from going any further. The time was 1.40 pm and after waiting for about 20 minutes on the road, the Prime Minister’s convoy turned around and headed back for Bhatinda at 2 pm, reaching the Air Force base at 3.20 pm. The Prime Minister thereafter left by air and returned to Delhi.

What is shocking about this whole sordid affair is the total apathy and incompetence displayed by the Punjab government and its administration. The Punjab Chief Minister, Mr CS Channi,  attempted to wash his hands of the affair, when he told the media that his government had no intimation that the Prime Minister would move by road. In the same interview, he contradicted himself saying that he worked till 3 am in the night, convincing farmers to clear all routes! Was Mr Channi really so naive or was he simply incompetent? Or worse still, was he complicit in what transpired? There are well laid down drills whenever a VIP movement by helicopter takes place and one of them is to cater for bad weather. A road convoy is always kept at stand by, to enable move by road should the weather not permit move by helicopter. This was known to all in the Punjab administration, which was why the road move had been catered for earlier, as part of contingency planning. 

The lackadaisical attitude displayed by the civil administration and the Punjab police is equally baffling and suggests utter indifference and total incompetence. Why was the route not sanitised and picketed? This should have been done as part of contingency planning, even if the Prime Minister was moving by helicopter. But there are two more breaches which defy comprehension. Was the administration not aware of what the protesters were up to? And how did the protesters come to know that the Prime Minister was moving by road? The first implies intelligence failure and the second a security breach, wherein someone in the know, informed the protesters of the Prime Minster’s move to include the route and time plan. Both these aspects need to be thoroughly investigated.

It is also surprising that protocol was not followed when the Prime Minister landed in Bhatinda. As per protocol, when the Prime Minister visits a town outside the state capital, the Chief Minister or a minister nominated by the state government must be present to receive the Prime Minister. The two senior most executives and police officers of the district must also be present to receive the Prime Minister. In this case, anticipating the possibility of a road move, there should have been a senior police officer present to accompany the Prime Ministers cavalcade to Ferozepur. It was his duty to see that the road was clear for the Prime Minsters move and he should have moved ahead of the Prime Minster’s cavalcade. The SPG Act empowers the Director SPG to issue directives on all authorities to assist him in providing fool-proof security to the P.M. It was thus the responsibility of the Punjab administration to have ensured that the route taken by the Prime Minister was clear.

The Prime Minister of India was stranded on the middle of a highway for about 20 minutes, with 200 odd protesters blocking his route. Anything could have happened, for even the public moving on the road below, knew the Prime Ministers cavalcade had stopped. And if Khalistani groups were also involved, then, as they are in cahoots with Pakistan’s ISI, the possibility of a drone attack on India’s Prime Minister, on the lines of what happened in the Air Force Base in Jammu was also a possibility. The Punjab administration must be held to account for the multiple lapses that have occurred, for it was not just the Prime Minister who was exposed to unnecessary risk, but the entire edifice of India’s democracy.

What is needed is a quick investigation into the lapses that occurred and holding to account, all those who compromised the security of the Prime Minister. In the charged security environment in which we are at present, only quick and firm action will send the right signals, both to India’s external enemies as also to those who continuously undermine India’s security from within.

The author is a retired Major General and is presently Director, India Foundation.

ENCOUNTER KILLINGS : PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF

On July 13, 2007, a three-judge bench of the High Court in Andhra Pradesh ruled, while disposing of a batch of writ petitions that it is not mandatory for the police to register a case of murder when there is an encounter killing. Human rights groups were understandably up in arms as Naxal activities and encounter deaths are rampant in the state. On February 6, 2009, a five-judge bench of the same court ruled it mandatory for the police to register an FIR whenever an encounter death took place. The HC judgment — whose operative part does not use the term ‘police encounter’, fake or genuine —mandated compulsory registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for a murder case wherever a police officer causes death, acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties or in self-defence. It directs that such a case be investigated like any other offence. Even if the investigating officer’s final report under Section 173, CrPC, concludes that no case is made out, the magistrate is to critically examine the evidence and take cognizance if necessary.

This was hailed as a landmark judgment by human rights organisations claiming it would end the practice of the police closing encounter cases on the plea of self-defence. Law enforcement authorities, however, found the judgment disturbing and through an appeal by the Andhra Pradesh Police Officers’ Association, obtained on March 4, 2009, a stay on the High Court Order from the Supreme Court of India.

Mr. Maxwell Pereira, a former joint commissioner of police, Delhi, in his article, ‘In the Line of Fire’ strongly supported the cause of law enforcement agencies and suggested that ‘police cannot combat violence with their hands tied down’. The reasons put forward by the former joint commissioner are reproduced below:
(a) The law of private defence stands abrogated, and all Indian Penal Code provisions concerning right of self-defence become obsolete and nullified.
(b) Registration of FIRs against police officers is mandatory for death caused even during discharge of official duties, including encounters.
(c) Police officers involved in thwarting the 2001 attack on Parliament and all National Security Guard (NSG) commandos who killed terrorists involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks could now face murder trials — as also other police officers and army and navy personnel including the NSG chief, Mumbai police commissioner and army area commander who extended protection or guided them during the operation. Perhaps the entire home ministry, state and central, and all police chiefs can also figure as accessories to a large criminal conspiracy and face the same murder trial as conspirators.
(d) This ruling could apply to other parts of India via other court judgments.
(e) There could be confusion among field formations handling tough situations.
(f) It would be prudent for state police forces to disarm personnel, withdrawing all arms and ammunition considered a must in their operations.
(g) It could lead central forces like the CRPF to request the Centre against deployment for internal security duties in states faced with violence, riots and insurgency, and/or anti- terrorist duties or situations warranting use of firearms.
(h) Because this judgment is to be implemented retrospectively, murder cases could even be registered for past police actions resulting in death. That means the prospect of cases being slapped on some of us retired policemen who supervised officers in encounter cases at some stage or the other. Further, the next time a terrorist fires at a police officer, it would be advisable for the latter to either get killed or run from the scene and face charges of cowardice and dereliction of duty. Else, he would face a murder case for killing the terrorist.
(j) The police now feel stifled to effectively perform their statutory duties and assigned tasks, as forces in armed combat cannot function with the prospect of a murder charge hovering over them thanks to impractical or unrealistic judicial pronouncements. The morale for those facing bullets is hit. Courtroom logic does not cut ice for the underpaid, overworked jawan risking life and livelihood for lofty ideals. He cannot perform if he is not guaranteed security from prosecution for genuine exchanges of fire.

When faced with the task of combating violence, be it from the terrorists, Naxals or criminal gangs, the job of the security forces is an unenviable one. It is but natural that no soldier or policeman would like to take on a hostile target if the subsequent legal process would treat him as a criminal. The five judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court would certainly have considered this aspect. That they still chose to pass an order making it mandatory for the police to register an FIR whenever an encounter death took place thus needs more careful deliberation and introspection.

In the years soon following independence, the Army was called to quell insurgencies that had broken out in Nagaland and in some other parts of the North East. The conduct of army personnel in the initial phases paid scant regard to human rights and in many cases the local junior commanders became a law unto themselves. The situation was however quickly rectified through strict action against defaulters and by instituting proper training for conduct of counter insurgency operations. In one case, when it came to light that a certain group of soldiers escorting a women prisoner had raped her repeatedly through the night, the entire lot was dismissed from service and given sentences of rigorous imprisonment. This happened more than forty years ago but the principle followed then has not been diluted till date. Stray allegations of abuse still surface against the army deployed in low intensity conflict operations in J&K and in the North East, most of which are biased and unfounded. But in all cases, the matter is investigated and if there is truth in the allegations, strict action is taken against the defaulters.

We do not find such things happening in the police forces. There is no in house enquiry that takes place; neither do we hear of any action being taken against guilty police officials. Action is only taken if the case cannot be covered up due to media pressure as in the case of the killing of two Haryana businessman on Barakhamba Road by the then ACP Mr. SS Rathi and his team in a fake encounter case.

The term encounter specialist is one which should be avoided but is unfortunately used with great pride by the police themselves. Statistically, whenever an encounter takes place, the probability of casualties to the security forces is high. When encounters take place by the score and not a single policeman is injured in the shootouts doubts are certainly going to be raised about their genuineness.

We must also ask ourselves why the police is compelled to act both as the prosecutor and the judge? Is it something to do with the lack of investigative skills which results in evidence being thrown out by the courts? Or does it have something to do with the lethargic manner in which courts themselves function? In either case, law enforcement agencies have a lot to answer for.

References given by Maxwell Pereira with respect to the possibility of action being taken against the security forces for taking on the terrorists in the attack on India’s Parliament and in the Mumbai carnage of 26 Nov 2008 is farfetched and seeks to deflect attention from the real issue which is that “All cases need to be properly investigated and brought before a court of law for proper disposal”. The courts too, need to get their act in order for speedy disposal of cases. Both the police and the courts thus have a vital role to play in our legal system and our thrust should be to ensure that our justice system delivers and delivers in time. Fake encounters are NOT the solution.

The Supreme Court of India has imposed a stay on the ruling of the five bench court of Andhra Pradesh. While the matter will be debated upon by our legal luminaries, the time has come for our police forces to act proactively against their own people who break the law and to institute measures to see that the criminal justice system is made effective.

CRISIS IN PAKISTAN: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

CRISIS IN PAKISTAN
CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

Pakistan is no stranger to terror attacks on its soil. In the recent past, attacks on the Pakistan security forces, blasts in crowded places, suicide attacks and the like have become commonplace and barely evoke public outrage and condemnation. The attack on the Marriott hotel and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto did evoke from the public and the state administration, very high levels of concern but the former was soon relegated to the background as the target was an elitist location, which belonged to an American franchise and was frequented by the rich and powerful, a large number of whom were foreigners. The assassination of a popular public figure obviously evoked very great outrage and condemnation, but this too was rationalised over time as a political killing and not viewed in the larger context of a specific design targeted at the state of Pakistan.
Then terrorists struck at the Sri Lankan cricket team on 3 March 2009. The Sri Lankan cricketers were on their way to the Gaddafi Stadium when their bus was attacked by 12 armed terrorists near Liberty market. Five cricketers, including Mahela Jayawardene, the captain were injured in the attack which killed six security men and two civilians. There have been terror strikes on the sidelines of cricket, but this was the first time that players were directly targeted. The attack was also the first major strike against an international sporting team since Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
In terms of physical casualties, the toll could have been much higher. Some of the cricketers could have been killed and the rest taken hostage, but providentially, they all got away, albeit with injuries to five players. However, the contours of the debate on terror have shifted dramatically since then, the attack being described in various quarters as Pakistan’s very own 9/11.
What was so different this time that it put not only the Pakistani state in turmoil but also made both India and the world stand up and view the situation with alarm. What was it that has made the public perceive the attack as comparable to the attack on the United States on 9 Sep 2001 and the attack on Mumbai on 26 Nov 2008?
Cricket has the status of religion in Pakistan. It was inconceivable for the establishment to believe that terrorists would actually target a sport with a cult following, so very popular amongst the public and risk alienation. Imran Khan, former Pakistan cricket captain-turned-politician had gone on record to state, when the Indian Cricket team cancelled its tour citing security concerns post the Mumbai terror strike of 26 Nov that “No one would ever dare attack a visiting cricketer because cricket is so loved in Pakistan. The entire nation would turn against the perpetrators.” Khan later had to eat his word, though he subtly shifted the blame on lax security – ‘I think this was one of the worst security failures in Pakistan," he told the BBC. "The Pakistan government guaranteed the Sri Lankan cricket team that they would provide them security, and to see the type of security provided to the Sri Lankan cricket team was completely shameful." He added: "It certainly is a disaster for Pakistan sport. But I think much more, I think this was targeted at Pakistan's economy and destabilising the country."
No group has as yet come forward to claim responsibility for the attack. To that extent, there would have been a lurking fear amongst the concerned terror outfits that to do so would risk public alienation. Yet the perpetrators took the risk of brazenly attacking a high profile publicly adored target which was under the highest security cover, a security cover guaranteed by the Government of Pakistan. Obviously, the attack was perpetrated to convey a more ominous message: The ability to strike at any time, at any place and against any target. The fact the attackers got away in a brazen manner, without being challenged indicates serious lapses in security, but more importantly, also hints at collusion between the terrorists and certain members of the security establishment and perhaps government agencies. The latter is a cause for more serious concern. It would be naïve to think that terror attacks being perpetrated in Pakistan are random in nature. There is a specific design and purpose to the commission of these acts and an understanding of such design is essential if we are to formulate an appropriate response.
To put things in the correct perspective, what is taking place in Pakistan is an ideological war. On one side are ranged the forces of the state to include various shades of democratic opinion, the liberal society, the rule of law, Government institutions to include the Armed Forces of Pakistan and even various religious bodies. On the other side is a fundamentalist brand of radical Islam. In between lie the masses of Pakistan for whose heart and soul the war is ostensibly being waged.
The weapon of radical Islam is terror. Which side wins the war will ultimately determine the fate of Pakistan and to some extent the rest of the region.
Viewed in this context, it is easier to comprehend what is happening in Pakistan.
As a developing country in which large social inequalities exist, Pakistan is considered ripe for a takeover by Islamic forces who aim to impose a theocratic form of Government based on a narrow fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. The foremost of these forces is the Taliban.
Large spells of military rule coupled with poor governance, inequitable land holdings and abysmal poverty have created fertile ground which finds takers for the radical brand of theocracy being propagated. The conflict in Afghanistan has also been a major contributing factor to the violence which currently envelops Pakistan. The decade long Soviet occupation which ended with the ignominious withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989 was followed by a vicious civil war over the next decade till the Taliban seized power in 1999 and declared their motherland as the “Islamic Caliphate of Afghanistan”. During these two decades, the Taliban operated from bases in Pakistan and to a large extent radicalised and influenced the population of the border areas of Pakistan. They grew up in refugees camps and seminaries organised by the Pakistan Government from funds received covertly from the US and openly from Saudi Arabia, learning the ideology of hate and revenge. Because of their origin in madrassas, (religious schools), the fighters came to be known as the ‘Taliban’ or students. When they seized power in Afghanistan, they set up a brutal theocratic regime, silencing all opposition. The women and children were once again the worst sufferers and this led to another wave of migration to Pakistan’s western border. Viewed in hindsight, the Communist regime under Soviet influence was heaven as compared to what the Taliban did to their country. The overthrow of the Taliban following 9/11 has however not led to peace and the war being waged by the US and its allies against terror is still ongoing and shows no signs of an early termination. The refugees continue to trickle into Pakistan causing further strains in an already fractured polity.
Large swathes of Pakistani territory on its lawless border areas with Afghanistan are outside the control of the Government. Radical Islam has already claimed its first success when the Government of Pakistan succumbed to the religious fundamentalists in the Swat Valley by signing a peace treaty on 16 Feb. 2009 with Sufi Muhammad, the chief of the pro-Taliban Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammedi, or Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law, and the father-in-law of the main militant leader in the valley. The North West Frontier Province and FATA are seriously affected and it is but a matter of time when the movement will spread to Punjab and Sind provinces, paving the way for imposition of a theocratic state in Pakistan akin to what the Taliban did in Afghanistan.
Indian armchair strategists keep pointing out that a stable and politically strong Pakistan is in India’s interest. Some openly talk of Pakistan as a failed state and suggest a balkanisation scenario where Punjab and Sind, the heartland of Pakistan with more than 80% of the population may form a core and Baluchistan, North West Frontier Province and FATA may break away in various ways. Both appear to be off the mark. A stable and politically strong Pakistan will never allow India to rest in peace and will continue to bleed India with its policy of a thousand cuts. The Balkanisation scenario is implausible. While large tracts of territory may be outside the control of the Pakistan government, disintegration is not an option for the militants. They want Pakistan and they want it whole. So within Pakistan, the battle is for the soul of Pakistan and the winner will take all. The larger danger for India is the state of Pakistan falling into Taliban hands. That will give them a safe haven to operate against India. It will also lead to a situation when millions of Pakistani Muslims will seek refuge in India creating disorder in the Indian polity of unimaginable proportion.
The question that naturally arises is how should India respond to the present crisis in Pakistan?
An ideal situation for India would be one where democratic institutions in Pakistan are vibrant and functional, civil society is secular, there is great interdependency in trade, people to people contact between the two countries is extensive and the military in Pakistan does not have an overriding voice in the affairs of state. Rather an Utopian order but one which is not totally implausible. While Pakistani society has by and large been conservative, their religious tradition was more in the Sufi mould which had a very large measure of tolerance. The present move towards pushing Pakistan to a theocratic state is alien to the Asian ethos and can be countered.
Waging war against Pakistan to counter that country’s support to terrorist activities within India is not likely to work. It will polarise Pakistani society and push them deeper into the hands of fundamentalist forces. In any event, the battle to be waged is ideological and ideas cannot be killed with a bullet. Targeting specific bases of the terrorists is an option but would require foolproof real time intelligence which may not be forthcoming. Acting on outdated or incorrect information would be counterproductive as the terrorists frequently change the locations of their hides and camps. As these are generally in close proximity to civilian habitation, the risk of collateral damage increases manifold without any surety of effective engagement of the terrorists. The more sensible course would be to target the source of terrorist funding. While this is easier said than done, it will be most effective in the long run. India, along with other countries must take this up in real earnest.
India must provide moral and material support to those sections within Pakistani society to whom a theocratic form of government is anathema. If the Pakistani middle class succumbs to the tactics of terror as propagated by the Taliban, then perforce the state will fall to the Taliban. India must, hence support those initiatives within Pakistan which will lead to strengthening the hands of the liberal society and making them capable of resisting the influence of theocratic forces.
Within Pakistan, initiatives need to be taken to restructure the educational curriculum, making it more broad based and inclusive. Curriculum being taught in the madrassas must include secular teaching especially in the field of math and the sciences. Hate campaigns against non Islamic countries must be removed and history taught in schools should be based on fact rather than a mythical exposition of the greatness of the erstwhile Islamic empires.
On the economic front, greater trade with India, to foster interdependency and promotion of mutual interest will strengthen the hands of the common man and force the political and military leadership on a path of cooperation rather than confrontation.
The rule of law must not only be maintained but should be seen to be effective. Land reforms and other measures to promote social and economic equity must be taken to reduce disparity and discord within society.
The Pakistan media has so far displayed great resilience in maintaining its freedom. This must be supported and encouraged.
In essence, the path to change lies in promoting more secular values within Pakistani society. India and the world must encourage and promote such change through diplomacy and conditional aid packages.