The charnel-house of crossfire

The so-called crossfire, primarily associated with the operations of a supposedly elite law enforcement outfit remains unabated, perhaps on a reduced scale and lately in semi-urban pockets and some extremist affected areas of the country. Protests and indignation against such apparently indefensible and incredible happenings by the human rights groups and concerned citizens appear muted and it would be difficult to convince the cynics that the campaign against the extra-judicial killing has not been given up. While the protests by civil liberation groups and human rights bodies may not be on the desirable wave and dimension, the clear condemnation and characterisation of such extra-judicial killing as an anathema in a democracy, by the British High Commissioner in recent times, is a sad reminder of the follies and failings of our politico-administrative institutions.

Immediate relief vis-a-vis long term damage
While the government of the day may find justification of the above extra-judicial killings by referring to the so-called public jubilation following the death of alleged hardened criminals, the discerning citizen of any civilised polity will reach the inevitable conclusion that such an eventuality is indicative of the uncontrollable state of crime and the helplessness of the regulatory authority in this regard. Under such circumstances, it would not be improper to say that the failure to lawfully conduct the affairs of public order have necessitated these extra-judicial killings. Any farsighted consideration will convince us that such extra-judicial killing cannot be an effective and realistic method of crime control. The reasons are simple, because if we fail to protect the legal rights of the accused, we will not be able to ensure the rights of the innocent members of the public.

A lawfully constituted government cannot resort to killing in this way and cannot issue licence to any outfit to indulge in such reprehensible killing. If this continues to happen then the criminal trial process and indeed the whole judicial system is bound to be dangerously undermined. The deaths under the garb of so-called crossfire is only highlighting the failure of police and the judiciary.

It is not for the ordinary or gullible members of the public to take a deep look at such extra legal killings because their concern is one of immediate relief from the depredations of the local bully or the entrenched tormentor. However, a civilised government cannot be a prisoner of such damaging retrograde thoughts. A very significant aspect which demands serious attention is that the so-called terrorists killed in the crossfire were in fact politically patronised and blessed. As a result, there is no guarantee that such killings will prove positive as has been implied in some utterances of responsible establishment personalities.

The “operation clean heart” also resulted in the extra-legal killings of identified terrorists and criminals and that too happened after only one year of assumption of power of a civil government. The law and order or crime situation did not register much of a change for the better. In fact, extra-judicial killings have not succeeded in controlling crime anywhere in any country. Crime and terrorism do not cross the bearable limit on its own. There are always cogent and credible factors behind such abnormalities. One needs to probe into those with the concern of a protector. Extra-judicial killings cannot be a sensible alternative proposition.

Decay of institutions
If as a civilised nation we expect our regulatory institutions including the police to regularly brush up their professional skills then we cannot be a party to willy-nilly facilitate the creation of a scenario wherein one would be willing to believe that those perpetrators of crime who cannot be brought under the law have to be dealt beyond the law. Needless to mention here that in such an assumption lies the suicidal admission that the criminal justice administration of a democratic polity have failed to act and the state has forsaken one of its primary functions. Since no right-thinking Bangladeshi would reconcile to such a scenario that smacks of a failed government they have a duty to find out why some organs of the state have to resort to apparent vigilante action. The nation needs to know if law-enforcement personnel are deliberately deviating from the statutory directives in anti-crime operations.

Eulogising or praising the 'crossfire actions' have created a worrying environment wherein result-oriented investigating officers are increasingly getting inclined to resort to short-cut methods to please official boss or the political masters. The worrisome part is the threat to put an alleged criminal or an ordinary suspect under the so-called 'crossfire scenario' in order to gratify ulterior motives. Since most crossfire deaths are not seriously persued for establishing the suspected culpability, the culprits in the enforcement and investigative apparatus discover a macabre win-win situation in such patently illegal acts. Elements of accountability and fear recede into background and investigation by the book becomes a pathetically low priority. Professionally speaking, this is an instance of heightened jeopardy because in Bangladesh the crime fighting machinery already stands accused of not cultivating a scientific modus-operandi and quite often relapsing into the untenable third-degree methods.

The question is, do we want sustained laborious action under the law to strengthen our democratic foundation or do we need rash desperate action without the cover of law? The crossfire actions, undoubtedly, do not fit in with the first proposition. We need to be absolutely clear about that.

Crime and desperation
The ultimate punishment in the alleged 'crossfire' about whose credibility many are not convinced, appear as summary response from desperate executives of law enforcement. The legality of actions leading to such extreme action apart, any responsible citizen might like to know if in our often over-zealous anti-crime operations, we are just treating the symptoms without venturing to study and assess the objective conditions promoting criminality. We do not need sociologists and criminologists to tell us that present-day crime is a complex social phenomenon caused by a multiplicity of factors and determining culpability is an extremely mind-exacting task.

Everyday life experience tells us that quite often the fun-seeking delinquent of yesteryears turn into uncontrollable don of the day due to the patronage of powerful quarters and the unexplained inaction of the enforcement outfit. Therefore, when deaths occur in the so-called 'crossfire' some myopic elements may be satisfied but a civilised society which wishes to live by the cannons of law cannot but be concerned.

The alleged deaths in 'crossfire' are forestalling the benefits of thorough investigation wherefrom the citizens could have known the pathetic as yet compelling factors behind the growth and maturing of criminals, the shady role of the patrons and the alleged inertia of the regulatory units. The apprehensive public may have known about the unstoppable lure of huge cash of sleazy transactions in some sectors of the economy and the mechanics of retaining control over such illegal extraction of unaccounted money. The fact that successive governments have failed to put any effective brake on such unlawful activities in the sensitive sectors raises disturbing doubts about the sworn commitments to control crime and corruption. Under such circumstances, it is difficult for the worried public to believe that the fearsome deaths in the 'crossfire' should be the preferred alternative. Spectacular but dangerous palliatives cannot understandably be the substitute of painful sustained action.

What we need is adequate provision of witness protection and victim support in the criminal justice administration. To make those effective we need large injection of governmental funds. Any further delay will only swell the ranks of summary-justice seekers and the admirers of vigilante action. The decapitating adversity of the victims of crime demand mainstream support of the system.

Means and goals
Sadly enough, we now have misguided citizens and law enforcers in our midst who think that if a criminal is known, whatever be the process of such identification, there is not much harm in doing away such element for the good of the society. Little do they realise that their logic is queer because in such eventuality the worst criminal on earth can also justify the blackest crime on the pretext of good motive.

If the government, in the persons of law-enforcers becomes law-breakers, it breeds contempt for law. To declare that the government may commit crimes to ensure punishment of criminals would invite terrible retribution. The objective of the civilised government is not to score points or play to the gallery but to ensure that justice shall be done. Law is the means and justice is the goal.

The crisis of our law and order have not sprouted overnight and as such the solution will not be instant. The creation of so-called composite elite force and the dubious desperado action indulged may succeed in temporarily keeping some terrorists on the run and the authorities may get some credit from unsuspecting public on this count but the real problem will remain in situ with root and branches. The residue of large scale violations of human rights by the guardians would be a shameful and painful memory to live with. It is time to ensure an effective halt to this continuing dark episode of our nation.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a former Secretary and IGP.