Issue 48 Vol II, September 30, 2007

A N A L Y S I S

Policing the Police
Gobind Thukral

OUR daily brush with the state and its apparatus, to put it mildly, is not a happy one. We are very often insulted, pushed around, humiliated and forced to bribe and for very small kinds of work. At times, we suffer much more than that; often subjected to barbarous behaviour at the hands of the agencies of the state and denied basic human rights. In theory people are the final repository of the state and its constitution idealises, We the People in laudatory expressions like Janata Janardhan and Mat Data and what not. In practice, they count the last or perhaps not at all.

Visit any office or an institution, all surviving and flourishing at the taxpayer’s money and suffer a disgusting behaviour. In government offices, hospitals, schools and in any other institution, the officials most of the time, particularly at the lower levels, normally look down upon at the public.  They are some kind of nuisance and troublemakers and have to be shunned like plague. There are exceptions, but they only prove the rule.   Dehumanized and insensitive officialdom thrives on this. If you are some body from the higher echelons of society or you have means to bribe and seek, it is all right. You are treated well and even offered a chair to sit and a cup of tea and that with a broad grin. Ordinary persons who have no deep pockets to bribe and no big names and positions to flaunt are frowned upon. This too depending upon the kind of officials the public is visiting. Teachers may not be that rough and the revenue officials may harass the public to force it cough out a good deal of money, doctors sometimes may treat with some kindness, but most offices present a gory sight. Police at the cutting edge of the state presents itself as the worst case of official apathy and brutality.

We often wonder why so much of   corruption and there are legions of stories at all levels; superior the level and higher the rate of bribery. These institutions created with an avowed aim of serving the people, reek with corruption and heap only humiliation on the people they are supposed to serve. When one chief minister tells the public that his predecessor had amassed huge wealth, say Rs 3,500 crore through corruption and fraudulent means and others charge the chief minister of making huge deals and favouring and building land and liquor mafia, people know and tend believe both. No questions are asked. For them all are chips of the same flock.

There is a great deal of despondency and cynicism. Dangerous for any democracy, particularly for the largest democracy that we are never tired of calling ourselves. The leaders from much of the political spectrum who every so often keeping returning to power, know the game well and have ensured that this ritual of periodic elections, called democracy would keep the public not only entertained but under the spell of delusion   that they are the masters.  They are told that they can chose anyone to be the ruler or turn him or her out on the streets with a begging bowl, a political pauper. In between the public should be ready to suffer the ignominies as the rulers the cozy positions and huge profit. The elite is in clear conspiracy with the rulers and enjoys the comforts of power and ill-gotten wealth.

Images and Reality:

Exactly how are we really governed? Take the case of the police and this is just to cite an example. There is a famous indictment of Justice Anand Narain Mulla way back early sixties that described aptly the police as the most organised force of dacoits, thugs and maniacs and what not. A visit to a police chowki, a police station or even when you face it on the streets or when it comes calling at your homes, it visibly demonstrates its physical power and viciousness.   But it is quick to make distinction between the elite and the ordinary folks and treats each section accordingly. Either you are somebody or you have a fat purse to be somebody to get on the right side of the class conscious.  Even policemen or officers are scared when this burly arm of the law confronts them. Ask those who have had the misfortune to receive that treatment which they have been otherwise meting out to the public in a most routine manner.

Archaic laws and rules govern the police and other arms of the government including justice system.  As one time union home secretary Madhav Godbole wrote, “ In this land in which even the transfer of power from British hands had to be effected at midnight on the advice of the astrologers, it has not yet been possible to find an auspicious time to replace the Police Act, 1861. We all know that things move slowly in this country but it is shocking that, nearly 60 years after independence, something as basic as the functioning of the police has continued to be governed by this colonial act.”

It is not that there had been no attempts to reform the police and make it more humane and responsible. Contrary to that there had been a plethora of commissions and committees under illustrious men to probe the malaise and fix the reforms. We continue with seminars, lectures and courses at the police academies and we engage costly social scientists and psychologists to help the reform process. But it does not move an inch except that some young or not so young police officers in their sheer enthusiasm sometime try to make a difference.

The National Police Commission (NPC) was established with the aim of reforming the police and the background was its gross misuse and brutalities it had been heaping on the public. It submitted  comprehensive reports in the late 1970s and early 1980s and suggested major reforms. It also presented a model Police Act to replace the antiquated Police Act. The then Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi was opposed to any action being taken on the recommendations of the NPC and all Congress-ruled states thought it best to follow their supreme leader. No one was interested like the state governments ruled by the other political parties in reforms.

The government of all hues have come and gone and the reports of the commissions and committees have continued to adore the bookshelves. Now there is once again a talk about reforms and hence the Manmohan Singh government has set another committee of experts. However, we shall have no reforms, as that would upset the apple cart of the rulers and would mean foregoing their hold over this most potent and heady instrument for wielding and misusing power of the state. The police is a law enforcement agency and every constitution of every democratic country enshrines one elementary principle – the rule of law. In India, successive governments at the centre and in the states have abused the police force systematically and thoroughly. A feudal functioning of the state has undermined its independence and sapped its morale. How come a police chief of a state that suffered the trauma of violence could declare from housetop that the police did kill unidentified people [naturally innocent] and those militants it wanted to win were declared dead and allowed to live and prosper as they were helpful in the fight. Which law and what rules allow this?

Here we are and the functioning of the police, like all other instruments of governance, has worsened sharply. There is a good deal of some meaningful research and plethora of committees that have discussed all significant issues. Yet these reports merely clutter the archives of the state and central governments. Nothing has come out of the public interest litigation filed by public-spirited former police officers in the Supreme Court, the last resort to mitigate the affliction. This case is pending with the apex court for the past several years. Other instruments suffer the same way and if there are doubts, visit any court and have a look at the justice delivery system.

To uphold the rule of law, and to make police the protectors of the poor and the weak, there is need to evolve a broad political and civil society consensus on the complex issues involved in establishing the rule of the law. Without adequate public debate and discussion of these issues, it is futile to draft a new police act or any other law. It is only through the relentless awakened public opinion that political parties can be made to see reason beyond their vested political interests. Any talk of welfare of the ‘aam admi’ and ‘Shining India’, ‘Resurgent India’ will be futile without rule of law in the country. An empowered public with information that knows the laws and can use information and laws. It is not scared of tough battles of democracy against corruption, sleaze and inefficient and heartless officials and the cunning politicians. Vigorous participatory democracy is the only answer.

BACK

An Islamist takeover
Ishtiaq Ahmed

THERE is a widespread perception in the world that extremists are about to gain control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Once that happens, they will embark on a radically new level of terrorism: one truly involving the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Some of the statements by the three men of Islamic reaction -- Abul Ala Maududi of Pakistan, Syed Qutb of Egypt and Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran -- on the duty of Muslims to spread Islam all over the world should leave no doubt that they did not overrule such expansion through force; on the contrary, the language and vocabulary they employed is unabashedly violence-prone. Therefore, the fear about an Islamist takeover in Pakistan is understandable, but its chances of succeeding are greatly exaggerated.

In any event, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the head of the Jamaat-e-Islami, founded by Maududi, and currently the head of the main clerical coalition, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, has in an article published in this newspaper on Sept. 9 made a strong statement purporting to dispel such a view about Islamists.

He wrote that Muslims are God-fearing people who can never think of causing death and destruction of innocent human beings by using nuclear weapons against them. He said that on the contrary, such evil acts are the doings of materialistic forces like the United States, which dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese.

I think Americans would mind being described as a materialistic nation if that word is used as an antonym of 'religious' or 'spiritual'. After all, the US is the most devout Christian nation with the highest rating of a regular church-going population among all the advanced Western polities, and under George W. Bush any pretence of materialism in the sense of being non-religious has been put aside as he openly professes a messianic fundamentalist Christian commitment purporting to save the world from alleged evil forces.

It is possible that Qazi Hussain Ahmad has had a real change of heart and he no longer subscribes to the use of force in general (and not just force through nuclear weapons) to solve political disputes or to achieve justice. In that case, it would be important that he condemns the terrorist attack in the United States on September 11, 2001 without any qualifications. While some weird argument can be made about an attack on the Pentagon since that is where the US military establishment resides, there can be no justification at all for killing nearly 3,000 men and women who were working in the World Trade Center buildings or were traveling in commercial aircrafts. I remember seeing a Pakistani father, Syed Tariq, crying hysterically on television because his daughter was working there and she was killed. Many Bangladeshis working in restaurants that day were also killed.

It turned out that the 19 men involved in those outrages were Arabs, 15 of them Saudi citizens. Anybody who has looked at the textbooks used in Saudi Arabia would have no difficulty in establishing that one main objective of such education, is to create citizens who hate everyone who does not subscribe to their narrow and bigoted ideology. We know that acts of terrorism are not natural or normal occurrences. They begin with indoctrination that inculcates a sufficiently impaired worldview and creates a mindset that given an opportunity, can be easy bait for recruitment by terrorist organisations.

What we always forget is that if the Americans have dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki once, they will do it again if they feel their vital interests or existence is gravely threatened. It is, therefore, not wise to provoke a conflict with the United States. Somebody has rightly pointed out that millions of Muslims, including several hundred thousand Pakistanis, work and earn a decent living in the United States and help their families. Their lives are already menaced by security checks and other forms of harassment. There is absolutely no reason to invite a full-fledged American military reprisal.

Therefore, I believe General Pervez Musharraf acted most wisely by joining the war on terror. I do believe, however, that while tracing down alleged Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan was correct, handing them over to the Americans in lieu of handsome rewards was unbecoming of a sovereign state. Those individuals should have been put on trial in Pakistan and given a fair chance to prove their innocence. Handing them over to the United States was too mercenary a way of doing things.

On the other hand, it was good that the Pakistan Government moved quickly to remove nuclear scientists from their jobs in the Pakistan nuclear bureaucracy and technocracy, when the Americans provided evidence that they were involved in extensive illicit trade in nuclear technology and equipment with states that the Americans consider rogue, in the international state system such as Iran and North Korea.

Weeding out generals and other bureaucrats suspected of harbouring Islamists or Al-Qaeda sympathies has also been a correct calculation. This is because if anything, we need to make sure that the Americans do not attack and occupy our country, which they will do, if they feel that the nuclear facilities are in the hands of terrorists.

Surely, Qazi Husain Ahmad will agree that the Lal Masjid insurgency was nothing but a typical manifestation of strong-arm tactics by extremist Muslims that could not have been allowed to succeed. The student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islami Jamiat-e-Tulba, already terrorises liberal students on university campuses throughout Pakistan. Keeping such terrorism out of the streets of Islamabad and other towns and cities of Pakistan is most important if Pakistan is ever to start behaving like a civilised society that allows dissent and pluralism to flourish.

Qazi Hussain Ahmad writes, 'Islam is a religion of love and peace, which invites all human beings to live like brothers and worship one God so that the entire world could become an abode of peace'. I think if we can begin to live like brothers and sisters among ourselves first, the rest of the world may be also be encouraged to do so. As a minimum, we should stop sectarian killings. Also, it would not be bad if we encourage our women and non-Muslim citizens to feel that they are equal before the law and have the same rights as Muslim men. Therefore, Qazi Hussain Ahmad should join the ranks of those who want to repeal all laws that create a society of unequals.

[The writer is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore.  isasia@nus.edu.sg Courtesy News, Pakistan http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=72262]

BACK

War in Iran Can be Extremely Dangerous for the West
Dr Swaraj Singh

THE French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, tried to get tough with Iran when he warned the world to prepare for the worst that means war in Iran. Many people thought that President Nicolas Sarkozy could take France to an Atlanticist course and make the French policies subservient to the American policies. This is proving to be a big set back for Europe. Europe, particularly France, was a moderating force on the international arena. While President Busch and Tony Blair followed unilateralist and western hegemonic policies, France continued to pursue an independent and more balanced policy, especially towards the third world countries.

Later, France's foreign minister appeared on September 18 to soften his weekend warning of war with Iran if it develops nuclear weapons, emphasizing instead the need to "negotiate, negotiate, and negotiate without respite."  This was in the wake of Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's warning; a top Russian official had said that bombing Iran would lead to "catastrophic consequences. He told the French newspaper Le Monde that his comments were aimed at "drawing attention to the gravity of the crisis." On Monday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon sought to play down Kouchner's comments, saying "France's role is to lead the way to a peaceful solution." After meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kouchner said he meant to say that war would be "the worst thing to happen." "Everything must be done to avoid war. It's necessary to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate without respite," he said. A foot in the mouth disease for the new French conservative government suffers these days. Iranian reaction was the known lines. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shrugged off Kouchner's warning of war, saying: "We do not take these threats seriously."

Mr. Sarkozy, an extreme rightist who is the most pro American President France had in half a century is pro Israel, anti Muslim and anti third world. He has done tremendous damage to France and Europe by pitting them against the third world and the Muslims. Now he is trying to endanger the whole world by provoking Iran and risking a third world war that the West has very little chance to win.

It is quite clear that France does not fully understand the risks involved in Iran war talk. The world is very different now than in the 80’s when Israel was able to destroy the nuclear facilities in Iraq.  The west is already having great problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tony Blair, the most Atlanticist British prime minister in recent history, was kicked out by his own party and President Busch is close to winning the title of the most unpopular and unsuccessful president America ever had. Both owe their fate to the Iraq and the Afghanistan war. 

General Musharraf, the most important western ally against terrorism, has become weak to the point that he has become more of a liability than an asset for the west. Pakistan is heading towards a great turmoil. The Islamists seem poised to gain a strong foothold in Pakistan. This situation will tremendously increase the western difficulties in the region. Starting war in Iran can be very risky. The repercussions of starting such a war can be only hazardous for the world peace. Iran has lined up more than a million volunteers for suicide attacks and can do tremendous damage to the American troops in Iraq and the NATO forces in Afghanistan.  These troops are practically hostages held by Iran.

The public opinion in the Western countries is very much against the Iraq war. Just recently, there were 100,000 anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC as opposed to about 1,000 pro-war demonstrators. Starting a war in Iran will further alienate the people. Even if there may be less opposition in the beginning yet as the consequences of the war become clearer, the public will turn against the war in a very big way.

Russia has expressed a great concern over the threat of war in Iran. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov expressed his concern after the talks with the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner.  He said, “Military action in Iran is a threat to a region where there are already grave problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  We sincerely hope that France will listen to this warning from Russia and reject Sarkozy’s dangerous policies.

[Swaraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S. Chairman, Washington State Network for Human Rights, Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA]

BACK