POLITICAL DIARY

NEW DELHI, 27 July 2007

Small Is Beautiful

STOKING SEPARATIST TENDENCIES

By Poonam I Kaushish

How big is big? When does big become small? Does beautiful small make big ugly? Will small fetch better dividends than big? Or vice-versa? Confused? Don’t be. At least not when we are talking about our polity and their vote-bank shenanigans. The latest brainwave to emerge from the political stable is to once again carve big States into small. Obviously, the bigness and smallness of a State has everything to do with massaging the polity’s vote-banks and improving their winability quotient!

Trust the Congress, hurting after its electoral massacre in the UP Assembly poll last May, to reignite the flames of ‘separatist tendencies’ by talking of redrawing the contours of the sprawling State. In the hope that UP carved into smaller units will fetch the Party big political dividends. Camouflaged as imperative for “political stability” in the country (read Party), it has mooted the idea of setting up another States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) to explore the formation of new States. No matter that till its electoral rout in UP, the Party opposed tooth and nail the creation of small States. It even let the Telengana Rashtriya Samiti quit the UPA alliance.

Needless to say, this out-of-the-blue decision to appoint another SRC has opened a Pandora’s Box on the demand for statehood from every nook and cranny of the country. Already, over 10 new entrants are rearing to go. It remains to be seen whether the Congress-led UPA Government will come out smelling of roses or reek of rotten eggs. That the task is tough can be gauged from the fact the issue is both emotive and politically sensitive, against the backdrop of many regions and sub-regions aspiring to be full-fledged States.

Besides Telengana in Andhra Pradesh and Vidarbha in Maharashtra, there is demand for Harit Pradesh out of Western UP, Bundelkhand and Purvanchal out of south-eastern UP, Gondwana from portions of Chhattisgarh, Andhra and Madhya Pradesh, Kodagu in Karnataka’s coffee belt, Bodoland from Assam, Ladakh from Kashmir, Garoland from Meghalaya, Mithilanchal from North Bihar and Gorkhaland in West Bengal. With the state party units divided in Telengana and Vidarbha it would be politically wise to push for reorganisation of the two States. This would force smaller parties align with it.

Nobody can deny that a few States in India are much too large and unwieldy for efficient governance. It takes nearly two days to get to Jhansi from Lucknow by road! Obviously, administrative efficiency is the first casualty. Recent experience shows that smaller States are able to meet the rising expectations and aspirations of their people for speedy development and a responsive and effective administration. Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and, earlier, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are cases in point. Haryana, a barren backyard of united Punjab largely comprising illiterate jats, was carved out of a prosperous Punjab after a long and patient struggle. So also Himachal. Ditto Uttarakhand from UP, Jharkhand from Bihar and Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh. Today, all are shining examples of “small is beautiful”.

However, protagonists of bigger States disagree. What guarantee, they ask, is there that this will end internal fissures. Make the rivers flow smoothly from one State to another. (Look at the ugly riparian fight between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.) Bring about a synthesis between the haves and the have-nots. A linguistic and cultural affinity. Clinching their arguments by asserting that India is not ready yet for a fresh redrawing of its political and economic map. Further reinforcing that if smaller incisions have to be made as in the USA, then the body politic of India would need to be wholly restructured on that pattern. s

In addition, it could well encourage fissiparous tendencies, ultimately leading to India’s balkanization and stoke the sub-terranean smouldering fires of disputes over borders--- and cities. Both Haryana and Punjab still want Chandigarh. Orissa demands the return of Saraikala and Kharsuan. Nagaland still wants to cut into large chunks of Manipur and certain forest areas of Assam. Bihar yearns desperately for the mineral-rich districts of Jharkhand.

Will not a further partition of the existing States result in an India that would fit Jinnah’s classical description of Pakistan as being “truncated and moth-eaten”? The only purpose it will serve will be to whet regional and separatist appetites, as it happened at the time of the first SRC in the mid-fifties? The very “blackhole” that our past leaders were ever eager to avoid.

The Congress manifesto of 1945-46, no doubt, stridently assured the people that provinces would be restructured on a linguistic and cultural basis. However, the priorities underwent a perceptible change following India’s partition. Speaking before the Constituent Assembly on 27 November 1947, Prime Minister Nehru pleaded: “First things must come first, and the first thing is the security and stability of India.” And, India’s ‘Iron Man’, Sardar Patel, embarked upon his mighty effort to integrate and unite India. More than 560 princely States were merged with the rest of India peacefully without any loss of time---lest India should be broken up into hundreds of smaller States. This was followed by the appointment of the Dar Commission to enquire into and report on the desirability or otherwise of creating any more provinces.

Interestingly, the Dar Commission recommended that no new provinces should be created. India, it said, was burdened with problems more urgent than the problem of redistribution of provinces. Such as defence, food, refugees, inflation and production. Grounds which more than hold true today. Secondly, the country could not afford to add to its anxieties---the heat, controversy and bitterness which the demarcation of boundaries would involve. Lastly, the economic consequences of splitting up existing provinces into several new provinces.

This led to the Congress appointing another Committee, the JVP—Jawaharlal (Nehru), Vallabhbhai (Patel) and Pattabhi (Sitaramayya). The JVP concurred with Dar’s views that reorganisation would divert attention from more vital matters and retard the process of consolidation of the nation’s gains. However, to appease their political supporters, a significant rider was added: “If public sentiment was insistent and overwhelming, the practicability of satisfying public demands with its implications and consequences must be examined.” An innocuously-worded political corollary for which we are having to continue paying a heavy price.

In turn, this resulted in the setting up of the States Reorganisation Commission in December 1953, headed by Justice Fazl Ali, retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It made its recommendation in September 1955. Whereby the component units of the Indian Union would consist of two categories---“States forming primary federation units of the Indian Union and territories which are centrally administered.”

It recommended the continuance of Hyderabad as a composite State comprising Urdu, Telugu, Marathi and Oriya speaking areas. However, Nehru developed cold feet against the backdrop of a violent agitation for Andhra Pradesh (as “Telugu Desam”) and the self immolation of Potti Sriramulu. He went over All India Radio and, to the shock and surprise of his senior Congress colleagues, expressed “surprise” over the recommendation.

Regional leaders like Charan Singh promptly took advantage of Nehru’s statement and started demanding the liberation of smaller colonies from the ruling classes. Union Home Minister Pant, eager to ensure the clout his State of undivided UP wielded in national affairs, countered the demand for smaller States by talking of zonal States. In fact, he went on shrewdly to turn the tables on those loudly demanding smaller States by cautioning against India’s break-up into hundreds of smaller States. Did the country want to reverse the historic integration brought about by the Sardar?

Typical of India’s political culture, the first SRC and the creation of new States left in its wake more controversies than it sorted out. Assam got carved out into four units, beginning with the promotion of a solitary Naga district into a full-fledged State of Nagaland without much thought to its consequences. Logically, if one district could initially be made Nagaland and another Mizoram, what was the logic to hold back Telengana or Vidarbha? The tragic irony of history is that successive Prime Ministers bought peace at the cost of strong integrated India by carving out new jagirs for acquiring “new chelas” and assured vote banks. Lest history books omitted their “contribution” in the building of a new India.

The controversies and demands generated then continue till date. Unfortunately for the Centre, its policy of going populist time and again and opting for quick-fix remedies has boomeranged. What, one might ask, is the alternative? Statesmanship and sagacity lie in adopting the middle path. The UPA Government should not set up another SRC just to win votes. It needs to learn from the mistakes of the recently carved small States, diagnose the disease afresh and hammer out solutions for better governance. Much can be achieved through meaningful decentralization of administration in these days of computerization, without adding to the cost of governance through top-heavy ministerial baggage.

Let us not allow politicians of all hues to create new pocket boroughs motivated by petty personal interests, undermining national unity. India has just entered its 60th year of Independence with 27 States, a testimony to a free and vibrant democracy. Are we now going to roll back history to pre-Independence days and create 562 States? Let not history record what Conrad Egbert once brilliantly stated: We learn nothing from history except that we learn nothing from history! ---- INFA

(Copyright India News and Feature Alliance)

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 14 July 2007

Leaders With Small Minds

LOOKING FOR GIANTS AMONG PYGMIES

By Poonam I Kaushish

Kudos galore to Kalam, our outgoing President for his courage and commitment to India’s well being. For speaking out loud and clear his apolitical and brutally honest observations on our polity. An insider’s view about our top leaders across the board with whom he has inter-acted closely over the last five years of his Presidency. Speaking at the launch of computerization of courts last week in New Delhi, he lashed out at India’s “decision makers with small minds” and deeply grieved over the “shortage of leadership with nobility.” Candidly, the first citizen of our country not only underscored the popular perception of our polity among the people but also gave it the Presidential seal of approval!

Mercifully, his speech was not wholly a distressing dirge. At the same time, Kalam paid glowing tribute to the judiciary in the presence of the Chief Justice of India and the Union Law Minister and asserted: “Our Society is going through a unique dynamics due to the shortage of leadership with nobility. The only hope the nation cherishes and looks to is the judiciary with its excellence and impeccable integrity. We should do everything to make the judicial system succeed. It is said that a nation fails not because of economic progress but because of an increase in decision makers with small minds.”

How have our netagan reacted to this bombshell from the Rashtrapati? Tragically, their response has only confirmed Kalam’s charge of decision makers with small minds and leaders lacking nobility. Instead of sitting up and taking note of the President’s anguish, a majority of our leaders have chosen to completely ignore his torment. Not a few have passed snide comments that the Rashtrapati’s words were a classic case of sour grapes for being denied a second term. Others have rested their case on having to pay the price for getting an ‘outsider’ as the President. Notwithstanding the fact, that it is this ‘outsider’ who has restored glory to the Presidency, endeared himself to the masses and converted the Rashtrapati Bhavan into the People’s Bhavan.

True, it can be argued that we have grown accustomed to a petty self-serving polity, which thinks only of me, mine and myself. Of a political landscape dotted with politico-criminals in their “bullet-proof jackets” ---- MPs and MLAs tag replete with scams and scandals unlimited. Of tainted ministers who continue in office without any sense of shame, of our Right Honourables who have merrily converted offices of public services into private profit and justify their wrongs as in public interest. Failing to realize the disconnect between the jan sevak and the janata.

However, this time round what greatly troubles one is that these ‘small minds’ have willy nilly succeeded in denigrating and destroying the sanctity of the bastion of our parliamentary democracy: the President’s office. The on-going shenanigans over the messy selection and election of Kalam’s successor, ignoring established procedures and precedents, are proof enough. Replete as it is with petty games of conmanship and one-upmamship, charges and counter-charges of corruption, court cases, SMS, websites et al played out on the political chessboard.

Brushing aside the people’s clamour for ‘apolitical’ Kalam, the Congress-led UPA is all set to foist Rajasthan Governor Pratibha Patil, its sixth choice, in Rashtrapati Bhavan. Her USP? Unwavering loyalty to the Nehru dynasty and 10 Janpath. Worse, the poll is characterized by an unprincipalled democracy of concessions and political quid pro quo. We pick the President and you select the Vice-President, coos Sonia Gandhi to her Left comrades. Not to be outdone, the BJP-led NDA is desperately trying to work out its own quid pro quo with the 9-party UNPA on Bhairon Singh Shekhawat. Is the Presidential office sabzi-bhaaji that one buys off the rehriwala on the streets?

Sadly, if only our people had heeded Mahatma Gandhi’s first warning of our polity going awry. Durga Das records in his seminal memoirs, India from Curzon to Nehru and After: “Gandhi was deeply concerned about the rot that set into the Congress Party following Independence. He had received information that some Congress legislators were taking money from businessmen to get them licences, that they were indulging in black-marketing and subverting the judiciary and intimidating top officials to secure transfers and promotions for their protégés in the administration.” He, thereupon, proposed that all Congress candidates for Parliament and the provincial legislatures be screened and certified for integrity and selfless spirit of service by a Committee of leading freedom fighters of absolute probity.

Regrettably, his proposal was not accepted. “Gandhi thereupon felt more isolated than ever from the men who claimed to follow him and practice his precepts. He felt like one exploited by his comrades for their political ends and therefore hit on another revolutionary plan. The Congress must dissolve and a Lok Seva Sangh (Servants of the People Society) take its place. He drew up a constitution for the Sangh and decided to place it before the Congress overlords. But the assassin’s bullet ended Gandhi’s life with two tasks to which he had dedicated himself remaining unfinished. He could neither restore peace and goodwill between India and Pakistan nor could he purge Indian politics of its corrupting influences.”

Most unfortunately, the decline accelerated during the latter half of Nehru’s rule. Sharp differences arose between Nehru and Rajendra Prasad over the powers of the President and his freedom to speak up for the country and its people. (More about this another day) Rajen Babu, as he was popularly called, was crystal clear that the President would have justification for public expressions of presidential disapproval in case a Ministry was mismanaging the affairs. Leading Rajen Babu to meaningfully remind Nehru and his Ministers time and again of the old Sanskrit saying: Yatha Raja tatha Praja. But the leadership was not willing to mend its ways. Instead, it added to the rot without any qualms. There was no Gandhi to whom Nehru and others were answerable.

In fact, President Radhakrishanan went by Rajen Babu’s view and eloquently spotlighted the serious decline in public standards of morality, honesty and integrity and warned of the pitfalls ahead. Addressing the nation on the eve of the Republic Day in 1967 (which Congressmen described as a parting kick) he said: “The feeling should not be encouraged that no change can be brought about, except by violent disorders. We make the prospect of revolution inescapable by acquiescing in such conduct. As dishonesty creeps into every side of public life, we should beware and bring about suitable alternations in our life.”

It has been a steady downhill thereafter. The Mahatma had a genius for building great leaders. In sharp contrast, Nehru believed in lopping off the tall poppies, as reflected in the infamous Kamraj Plan. Nehru’s daughter Indira, who lacked grassroots experience and support, not only followed in her father’s footsteps but went a step further. She chose to control the Congress from New Delhi by converting it into an organization of ‘yes men’ who owed loyalty only to her and her alone. The sole criteria being sycophancy. Thus small and petty leaders were handpicked by her and propelled on to the centrestage. Her son Rajiv carried the family banner forward and now daughter-in-law Sonia has perfected sycophancy and loyalty into Brand Congress.

India today once again stands at the crossroads of destiny. The time has come for its masses and, more especially, its silent majority to think beyond the country’s petty power-at-all-cost polity, throw out the scoundrels and look at the perilous implications for the unity, integrity and the future of the country. A people, no doubt, get the leaders and the Government they deserve. But, at the end of the day, are we going to mortgage our conscience to ‘small minds’? Are we going to allow leaders without nobility to recklessly play havoc with India’s future?  The moot point: How long are we going to continue to look for giants among the pygmies and allow the later to ride-roughshod over us? Time to stand up and be counted. Time also for another Gandhi! ---- INFA

(Copyright India News and Feature Alliance)    

New Delhi, 6 July 2007

Reservations For Muslims

MINDLESS HINDUSTANI KHICHRI

By Poonam I Kaushish 

Two men knocked at God’s door wanting to experience Heaven. Before letting them in, God enquired their religion and caste. The first said he was a Muslim Dalit. God welcomed him with open arms. The second said he was a Hindu Brahmin. God replied: “Sorry, your quota for Heaven is full.” The moral of the story: Even God heeds the diktats of the Manmohan Singh-led UPA Government’s appeasement policy.

Funny? Not at all. It is a sad reflection of our times, where quotas and queues are the all-season favourites. Where people are being compartmentalized for sacrifice at the altar of caste-creed politics in the name of social and economic upliftment. With all merrily converting positive affirmation into vote percentage. Clearly, the day is not too far when India’s cricket team and casualty wards in hospitals will be reserved on caste basis.

The latest concoction of the mindless Hindustani khichri called minority appeasement is from Andhra Pradesh. Perhaps, working on the premise of third time lucky, the State Government last week decided to promulgate an ordinance to provide four per cent reservation to 15 groups of 'socially and educationally backward' Muslims in professional educational institutions and Government employment with effect from the current academic year. Asserted the State Minister for Information, "We are deeply committed to the cause of providing social justice to the socially and educationally backward classes among the Muslims." (Sic).

This time around, Chief Minister YSR Reddy has tried to circumvent objections raised for extending reservations to the minority community by putting Muslims in 15 different classes  in category E of the backward classes, covering nearly 85 per cent of the community. Thus, technically speaking, the new quota is based on backwardness not religion. It also complies with the Supreme Court’s benchmark of 50 per cent reservation.

Having burnt his fingers twice over, Reddy doesn’t want to take chances. Recall, in 2004 and 2005 the State Government had earmarked five per cent reservations for the entire Muslim community (excluding the creamy layer) first by issuing a Government order and subsequently by promulgating an ordinance. But both times the Andhra Pradesh High Court played spoilsport and struck it down as the overall reservations would exceed the ceiling.  

Given the level of dishonesty and irresponsibility which increasingly governs our political system, this step will, no doubt, lead to disaster. If reservation based on castes is bad, affirmative action on communal basis is horrendous. Ominous reasoning is being appendaged. It would bring the Muslims into the mainstream. Ensure harmony between the majority-minority communities. It would prevent Muslims from being exploited any more as vote-banks by the so-called secular parties.

Really? Aren’t the Congress’s intentions just that? Exploitation in the name of social and economic upliftment. Never mind if it pushes India back by a century. The moot point is clear. How does it better the lot of the mass of Muslims, if a few persons get jobs? Is the Muslim identity distinct from that of the Indian? Is he an Indian Muslim or a Muslim Indian?

Clearly, the State Government’s seems to have bitten off more than it can chew. In its quest to wean the Muslims back into the Congress fold, it may end up losing the miniscule support it now enjoys. Most significantly, all religious, social and political organizations of the Muslims, including Jamiat-e-Islami and Majlis-e-Iltehadul Muslimeen have outrightly rejected the Government’s move. In fact, they are livid and see the proposed ordinance as a dangerous move to create caste differences among the Muslims and divide the community.

Not just that. Islamic seminaries in the State have also issued a 'fatwa' against the proposal and termed it unIslamic. Six well-known seminaries, led by the Jamia Nizamia, a 125-year-old Islamic university based in Hyderabad, have asserted: "Muslims all over the world are equal. There is no distinction of caste, colour or race among them. Therefore creating distinction among them for reservation is improper under the Shariat. It is the political parties that have given way to discrimination on the basis of caste among Muslims.”

Added Asaduddin Owaisi, Hyderabad MP, “There is no empirical evidence or data or population figures. How can they go ahead with this? If the Government wants to provide reservations then it should be provided to Muslims who are socially, economically and educationally backward, without dividing them on the basis of caste or baradaries, as Karnataka has done.”

More. To counter the State Government’s move, various religious, political and social organizations have joined hands to form the Muslim United Action Committee (MUAC). Without mincing words, the clerics have warned the Chief Minister that his ordinance would prove ‘suicidal’ for the Congress in the elections. "The Congress came to power with the support of the Muslim community. By taking this step, it will lose our support," cautioned the MUAC President. Muslims account for about 9 per cent of the 76 million population in Andhra Pradesh.

Importantly, is the case of Muslim “backwardness” on all fours with that of the Scheduled Castes and other disadvantaged sections of the Hindu community? Not at all. True, a large number of Hindus from the lowest strata of its society converted to Islam and Christianity to get rid of the stigma of being ‘untouchables’ and denied the right to live a dignified life. Thus creating a new set of Muslims and leading to the emergence of a new social hierarchy for availing of the economic benefits.

True also that the Government’s fundamental mission is to uplift the poor and the backward classes, educate and provide them equal opportunities.  But when education and job reservations are calculated on the basis of belonging to a particular caste and religion per se, it goes against Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.  

The problem arises when our netagan in their quest for votes recklessly label the minorities, Muslims and Christians, as backward or dalits for availing the quotas. Knowing full well that Islam does not accept any casteism and therefore no Islamic country provides reservations to the poor among the Muslims by labelling them dalits or backwards. Or has the Pope issued a new Bull that erstwhile Hindu dalits who have embraced Christianity should continue to be called dalits and be provided reservations as Dalit Christians?

Tragically, so blinded are our politicians in their quest for power that none can see the Frankenstein they recklessly continue to create. By giving legitimacy to a communal quota, religious bigotry at its most ferocious could end up in carving once more a blood-stained path across our country. Clearly, this could sow the poisonous seeds for a new communal movement and separate electorates inspired by the two-nation theory that tragically led to India’s partition.

What next? Unless we stem the rot, the day is not far when Muslims could once again demand communal representation both in the legislative assemblies of the States and in Parliament. Incredibly enough, the Christians of Andhra Pradesh are not far behind. They are now the latest to hop on to the reservation bandwagon. A new Christian Front is now demanding that the State Government follow the Tamil Nadu example wherein Christians are included in the 5 per cent quota for the Muslims. Given the fact that they account 10-15 per cent of the State’s population. Once this trend catches on, there will then be a demand before very long for separate quotas for the Sikhs, the Buddhists, the Jains and many more. May be even the Brahmins and the Thakurs will demand reservation!

It is time to remember Babasaheb Ambedkar’s wise words against reservations and the hidden monsters behind them. He said: “Reservation too should be done away with because it becomes a hindrance to development.” Clearly, the Government has honestly to end this evil of separatism and casteism which is beginning to eat into the vitals of even Islam and Christianity. Reservations are no answer for fulfilling the people’s aspirations. These will not only further divide our people on creed-caste lines but come in the way of narrowing India’s burgeoning divide between the haves and the have-nots.

Our petty power-at all-cost polity has to think beyond vote-bank politics and look at the perilous implications of their decisions. What exactly is the message the Government proposes to send across the country by its mindless reservation policy? It must desist from sowing the seeds of another partition? Vote-bank politics must not be allowed to continue recklessly and play havoc with India’s unity and integrity and progress. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)            

Political Diary

New Delhi, 25 May 2007 

Allowance For The State

Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Kauserbi. Two names that did not ring a bell until a few weeks ago. Yet they continue to make news and, what is more, raise national controversies. Remember, they brought Parliament to a grinding halt for a day during the recent Budget session. The two also caused three senior IPS officers to be suspended on a charge of having been involved in their killing in a “fake encounter”. Notwithstanding the police claim that the two were dreaded terrorists.

Should “fake encounters” be permitted or tolerated in a civilized, law-abiding society? Or, is there any scope for exceptions where national unity and security are involved? Sardar Patel, architect of India’s unity, drew a sharp distinction between terrorism and the rule of law and went ahead as India’s Deputy PM and Home Minister to crush the Communist revolt and terrorism in Telengana ruthlessly. No questions were asked then---or thereafter.

More about the Telengana action later.  First the Sohrabuddin story. The facts about the two killings in Gujarat in November 2005 are at best murky. Nevertheless, it is more than established that the Anti-Terrorist Squad of the Gujarat Government did abduct and murder Sohrabuddin, who had a criminal record, allegedly as part of a vendetta killing. Subsequently, he was branded a member of the rabid militant outfit, Lashkar-e-Taiba. His wife Kauserbi was also eliminated two days later, presumably for having witnessed her husband’s abduction.

Expectedly, the alleged killings of innocent persons led to a countrywide furore. The CPM has accused the Narendra Modi Government of communalizing the police and the administration in Gujarat. In fact, the spotlight has been turned once more on two aspects of law and order: criminalization of the police and proliferation of encounter killings. An additional DGP of the Railway Protection Force has been named to head a fact-finding team to conduct a “thorough probe” into what is described by many as a “rather bloody chapter in Punjab’s modern history” when terrorism was effectively snuffed out. Surprisingly, few among the powers that be have bothered to pause and ponder over what might have happened if the then police Chief of Punjab, KPS Gill, had turned soft on the Khalistanis who were determined to establish Khalistan as a separate independent State by hook or by crook.  Some other States have also announced probes into their respective anti-terror operations, what with more and more leaders liberally swearing by human rights, right or wrong.

Sensational action against fake encounters in Gujarat, has encouraged the Chhattisgarh Government to follow suit in the killing of seven tribals in an “encounter” near Bijapur last month. Its Police Chief has announced a probe, with directions to exhume the bodies of the tribals for autopsy. The local police has also been asked to register a case of murder if evidence is found that the tribals were killed as Naxals by the security personnel. Similar instructions have been given to the police in some other Naxalite-affected States in regard to the encounter killings.

The Centre and the States are undoubtedly entitled to have the cases of encounter killings investigated. As pointed out at the very outset, fake encounters cannot be permitted in a civilized country and innocent killed. But the point to stress here is that the Government must have full freedom to deal with terrorists and their grave threat to the country in whatever way considered best and most effective. This consideration alone prompted Sardar Patel in tackling widespread terrorism in Telengana, as recorded by Durga Das in his seminal memoirs “India from Curzon to Nehru and After”.

Durga Das writes: “He (Patel) crushed the communist revolt in Telengana in Hyderabad State with the help of hand-picked officials. He ordered the police to shoot at sight and kill as many rebels as was necessary to break the back of the uprising. As a result of the directive, over a thousand persons were shot dead and the communist extremists were so demoralized that for the next  two decades they eschewed armed action and took to constitutional means….” Not only that. Patel was equally ruthless when it came to Police Action against Hyderabad. He advised the Army “to send troops to garrison Secunderabad Cantonment and take police action against the Nizam if he resisted.”

We must resist the temptation of generalizing the killing of terrorists and superficially viewing them in a vacuum, even as we stand for human rights and oppose butchery of innocents. Such incidents should be viewed against the backdrop of national interest, remembering that a terrorist is a terrorist and a law unto himself. He chooses the time and the place of his strike and has to be tackled as in war, in which even innocent people get killed. True such killings cannot be condoned. But there is no other go. Likewise, terrorists cannot be allowed to roam freely and enact a Kandhar. India would have saved itself great humiliation and cross-border terrorism with renewed vigour if the three terrorists released at Kandhar had been dealt with appropriately and not merely jailed.

Interestingly, the question of encounter killings was taken up by India’s National Human Rights Commission in 1998.  It observed: “The law in India recognizes the right of a citizen to private defence and in the course of such private defence even the causing of death can be justifiable in some circumstances. The same right of self-defence is available to a policeman. In addition, the use of force if it results in causing death in the course of an attempt to arrest a person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, can also be justifiable under the law. However, if a death is caused in an encounter that cannot be justified on the ground of a legitimate exercise of the right to private defence or in proper exercise of the power to arrest under Section 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police officer causing the death would be guilty of the offence.”

The Commission did not stop there and expressed itself clearly in regard to such guilt. It stated: The Commission is of the opinion that in determining whether or not the causing of death in an encounter in a particular case is justified will depend upon the facts established after proper investigation.”  Concerned over the large number of complaints it received against fake encounters, the Commission laid down a procedure to be followed.  It recommended: a) when the officer-incharge of a police station receives information about the death encounter he shall enter the information in the appropriate register; b) immediate steps should be taken to investigate the facts and circumstances leading to the death; and c) the investigations should be conducted by some other independent investigation agency like the State CID.

One important lesson needs to be drawn from the grisly episode of fake encounter killings: the need to insulate the police from political masters. This requires an end to the pernicious practice of transferring police officers on the whims of the State Government. Unless there is a good reason, such as gross negligence of duty or corruption, police officers need to be given a fixed tenure at any given position. Police can also be delinked from the political class by setting up an independent watchdog to monitor complaints against erring policemen. Equally of interest is a key reform proposed by the Supreme Court last year. It advocated a Security Commission to which the police personnel could turn to, if asked to perform illegal acts by the Government.

All this is fine. But one cannot really put forward the logic of Ahimsa in today’s terrorist-ridden world and assert that the killing of another human is wrong whatever be the situation. Most legal systems the world over turn a blind eye to fake encounters by the state since rabid motivated terrorism cannot be tackled softly.  Exceptions have willy nilly to be made and fake encounters allowed in dealing with the increasing terrorist menace. 

Every State is honour-bound to maintain law and order and, above all, to protect the integrity of its country as its sworn “dharma”, eloquently illustrated by Lord Krishna in the Mahabharata. Recall, Krishna tactically spread the news that Ashwathama (Drona’s son) had been killed whereas only an elephant by that name had fallen.  One could  argue  endlessly whether Krishna was right or wrong. However, the crucial point is that the news demoralized the Kauravas on learning that their “undefeatable” Drona had been eliminated---and enabled the Pandavas to win the epic battle of Kurukshetra.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)