<!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think, this is the answer which every Indian has been looking for :
Delhiâ84, Gujaratâ02, Londonâ05
We can learn from how they responded to public violence
K. SUBRAHMANYAM
Posted online: Saturday, August 20, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
On May 27, 1964, when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru died of natural causes, General Chaudhuri, then army chief, ordered an extra brigade of troops into the Capital. Since the defence minister and defence secretary were out of the country he did not take anybodyâs permission for the move, nor was the Delhi area commander aware of the move. Worried about this unusual troop movement, then chief of the Intelligence Bureau, B.N. Mullick, ordered several battalions of central police forces into the city. When Defence Minister Y.B. Chavan asked an explanation from General Chaudhuri, for his moving troops during peace time without permission, the general explained that he had anticipated crowd control problems during the funeral and that was why he had taken the action he did. Since the defence minister and defence secretary were out of the country, and the Cabinet was still being formed, he had taken the recourse of informing the president.
This story is narrated here because on October 31, 1984, it did not occur to the cabinet secretary, home minister, home secretary, the lieutenant governor of Delhi and the commissioner of police that the circumstances of the prime ministerâs assassination would call for additional manpower to safeguard life and property in the Capital. Each passed on the blame for not having taken action to the other. Since Indian authorities do not have the tradition of carrying out assessments and anticipating and getting ready to meet a situation likely to arise â in a spirit of preparedness â the Sikh community paid a high price.
Properly trained law and order authorities would have declared and enforced Section 144 CrPC immediately, the army would have been requested to be on stand-by and central para-military forces would have patrolled the streets. In post-Godhra Gujarat, too, a sensible law and order policy would have called for a state-wide alert, the enforcement of Section 144 and street patrols. In both cases, the police were held back. Since a significant number of policemen in Delhi were Sikhs, and they were asked to stay at home, the consequent depletion in the strength of the force should have been immediately made up. There was no attempt to do this until it was too late.
Compare this with what happened in London on 7/7. Following the bomb blasts in the London transport system, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was in full charge. No British politician came on to the streets and visited the sites of terrorist blasts. Nor did the media approach them. The entire crisis was left to be managed professionally by the police. The problem both in Delhi 1984 and Gujarat after Godhra was the same â the intervention of politicians in the professional enforcement of law and order.
In mature democracies, episodes in which thousands of lives are lost would be thoroughly investigated with efficiency, alacrity and professionalism, with remedial action being taken. This is what happened after 9/11. The contrast with the situation here could not be more telling. After 21 years in the case of 1984 events and three years after the Gujarat killings, the country is nowhere near a professional inquiry and remedial measures. One inquiry succeeds another mainly to ensure that there will be no finality in respect of findings or remedies. This is evidence enough that the root cause for these events are political and not merely criminal.
What was most distressing in respect of 1984 events and Gujarat happenings is the debate on them in Parliament. There was hardly any suggestion on the need to depoliticise law-and-order enforcement in the country. All political parties are agreed that false cases are foisted on politicians by law enforcement authorities under the political direction and control of the state. Yet our parliamentarians will not agree to depoliticise law enforcement and allow the law to take its own course.
No doubt district magistrates and superintendents of police have the ultimate responsibility when situations of public violence occur. But are they allowed to exert this responsibility? Would our law makers consider making it a criminal offence for a minister or secretary to give directions to the law-enforcing authorities? The district magistrates and superintendents of police are selected and posted by politicians to ensure that pliable officers are given command of key stations. Politicians have created an administrative culture in which all officers are aware that their career advancement depends on their carrying out favours for politicians, whether lawful or not. Politicians who have no compunctions in foisting false cases against other politicians, can fabricate with equal ease disciplinary cases against officers as well. In this type of administrative culture, it is not surprising that Delhi 1984 and Gujarat 2002 happened. Parliamentarians level accusations against each other but they were not interested in preventing a repetition of such incidents. If they were, they would have got together to legislate by consensus administrative and law enforcement reforms which would make law enforcement autonomous and accountable.
It is a sad reflection on our democracy that some of the people named, time and again, as inciters of mob violence in Delhi 1984 have got elected in successive elections. So also the chief minister who is alleged to have held back the law and order forces in Gujarat. We have to recognise that people are not always, by instinct, democratic and tolerant. Secularism and democratic values have to be cultivated among people. It is self-deception to pretend that the common man is naturally democratic and secular. If that were so, the majority of the nations in the world would have been democratic, secular and well governed. Unfortunately, they are not so. Until we recognise this basic truth and consciously work towards cultivating the values of democracy, secularism and good governance, our Constitution will be exploited and abused by the unscrupulous in the name of democracy.<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'></span></span> <!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think, this is the answer which every Indian has been looking for :
Delhiâ84, Gujaratâ02, Londonâ05
We can learn from how they responded to public violence
K. SUBRAHMANYAM
Posted online: Saturday, August 20, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
On May 27, 1964, when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru died of natural causes, General Chaudhuri, then army chief, ordered an extra brigade of troops into the Capital. Since the defence minister and defence secretary were out of the country he did not take anybodyâs permission for the move, nor was the Delhi area commander aware of the move. Worried about this unusual troop movement, then chief of the Intelligence Bureau, B.N. Mullick, ordered several battalions of central police forces into the city. When Defence Minister Y.B. Chavan asked an explanation from General Chaudhuri, for his moving troops during peace time without permission, the general explained that he had anticipated crowd control problems during the funeral and that was why he had taken the action he did. Since the defence minister and defence secretary were out of the country, and the Cabinet was still being formed, he had taken the recourse of informing the president.
This story is narrated here because on October 31, 1984, it did not occur to the cabinet secretary, home minister, home secretary, the lieutenant governor of Delhi and the commissioner of police that the circumstances of the prime ministerâs assassination would call for additional manpower to safeguard life and property in the Capital. Each passed on the blame for not having taken action to the other. Since Indian authorities do not have the tradition of carrying out assessments and anticipating and getting ready to meet a situation likely to arise â in a spirit of preparedness â the Sikh community paid a high price.
Properly trained law and order authorities would have declared and enforced Section 144 CrPC immediately, the army would have been requested to be on stand-by and central para-military forces would have patrolled the streets. In post-Godhra Gujarat, too, a sensible law and order policy would have called for a state-wide alert, the enforcement of Section 144 and street patrols. In both cases, the police were held back. Since a significant number of policemen in Delhi were Sikhs, and they were asked to stay at home, the consequent depletion in the strength of the force should have been immediately made up. There was no attempt to do this until it was too late.
Compare this with what happened in London on 7/7. Following the bomb blasts in the London transport system, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was in full charge. No British politician came on to the streets and visited the sites of terrorist blasts. Nor did the media approach them. The entire crisis was left to be managed professionally by the police. The problem both in Delhi 1984 and Gujarat after Godhra was the same â the intervention of politicians in the professional enforcement of law and order.
In mature democracies, episodes in which thousands of lives are lost would be thoroughly investigated with efficiency, alacrity and professionalism, with remedial action being taken. This is what happened after 9/11. The contrast with the situation here could not be more telling. After 21 years in the case of 1984 events and three years after the Gujarat killings, the country is nowhere near a professional inquiry and remedial measures. One inquiry succeeds another mainly to ensure that there will be no finality in respect of findings or remedies. This is evidence enough that the root cause for these events are political and not merely criminal.
What was most distressing in respect of 1984 events and Gujarat happenings is the debate on them in Parliament. There was hardly any suggestion on the need to depoliticise law-and-order enforcement in the country. All political parties are agreed that false cases are foisted on politicians by law enforcement authorities under the political direction and control of the state. Yet our parliamentarians will not agree to depoliticise law enforcement and allow the law to take its own course.
No doubt district magistrates and superintendents of police have the ultimate responsibility when situations of public violence occur. But are they allowed to exert this responsibility? Would our law makers consider making it a criminal offence for a minister or secretary to give directions to the law-enforcing authorities? The district magistrates and superintendents of police are selected and posted by politicians to ensure that pliable officers are given command of key stations. Politicians have created an administrative culture in which all officers are aware that their career advancement depends on their carrying out favours for politicians, whether lawful or not. Politicians who have no compunctions in foisting false cases against other politicians, can fabricate with equal ease disciplinary cases against officers as well. In this type of administrative culture, it is not surprising that Delhi 1984 and Gujarat 2002 happened. Parliamentarians level accusations against each other but they were not interested in preventing a repetition of such incidents. If they were, they would have got together to legislate by consensus administrative and law enforcement reforms which would make law enforcement autonomous and accountable.
It is a sad reflection on our democracy that some of the people named, time and again, as inciters of mob violence in Delhi 1984 have got elected in successive elections. So also the chief minister who is alleged to have held back the law and order forces in Gujarat. We have to recognise that people are not always, by instinct, democratic and tolerant. Secularism and democratic values have to be cultivated among people. It is self-deception to pretend that the common man is naturally democratic and secular. If that were so, the majority of the nations in the world would have been democratic, secular and well governed. Unfortunately, they are not so. Until we recognise this basic truth and consciously work towards cultivating the values of democracy, secularism and good governance, our Constitution will be exploited and abused by the unscrupulous in the name of democracy.<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'></span></span> <!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo-->