Assault on police

Photo: Munem Wasif- Drik News

THE assault on lawmen, particularly the police, in the first quarter of 2013 has assumed a disturbing proportion. The death of eight policemen and injury of more than two hundred others are manifest demonstration of an ominous tactic of supposedly democratic protesters. Experts have doubted if such deaths and injuries have been caused by operational inadequacy of police and whether the government is seriously seized with the issue in its entirety.

There is no denying that Bangladesh is now witnessing politics of violence, which means resorting to physical violence to promote a political objective as well as the violence of politics, which denotes violence built into the institutionalised structure of politics. Liberal ideology denies the existence of violence of politics and tends to reduce all violence to the status of contingent violence, which is not a threat to the system.

In our context, one has to admit that the intensely confrontational politics that we see now has been significantly responsible for the opposition's strategy of targeting the police with a view to shattering public confidence in the principal law enforcement organ of the state. This is an unexpected development in the supposedly constitutional protest scenario. These are clear instances of terrorism and subversion as opposed to the usual political violence.

Under the circumstances, while one could take issue with the alleged deficiencies in the operational procedures of police, one has to remember that a predominantly civil force is not expected normally to operate in combat formation. If they do so not only would normal law and order functions be largely prejudiced, it would also in the process alienate the outfit from the general population whose support and cooperation is continually required for its service delivery.

In the presently charged atmosphere it might appear inappropriate to delve into the subject of norms of modern policing. However, it needs to be emphasised that the police force are a body of citizens in uniform exercising their lawful rights. At the same time the assumption is that the majority of the citizens would obey the majority of laws for the majority of the time. Our reality is vastly different and thus our police are charged with accomplishing an incredibly complicated task.

The intensity of the attack on the police and the manner in which it is being carried out should convince us that the present situation cannot be approached as exclusively a law and order issue. Therefore, one needs to know who are misusing the loudspeakers in the mosques to incite gullible villagers against the police by projecting the latter as anti-Islam forces. One also needs to know why such misdeeds are not politically countered in the affected area. This does not, however, preclude the inputs of critical intelligence that the agencies are supposed to provide in time.

The political terrorist may be a separate category to be dealt with. However unpalatable, it is becoming clear that religious zealotry has been a major source of terror. Such terrorists are targeting police and citizens with the express political purpose of coercing others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take.

The security of the state shall always be important but what is more significant is to ascertain as to which actor is exceeding the limits of legitimacy and indulging in unacceptable levels of violence in the present situation. Is the state becoming both a provider and predator of security? Similarly, are dangerously inflamed and violent protesters deliberately taking on the state apparatus with sinister schemers in the background stoking the fires?

The necessity of holding an executive enquiry, followed by judicial enquiry wherever applicable, into each incident of police firing live ammunitions should be followed. It would also be an imperative to ensure that the state agencies do not go beyond the purview of legal boundaries. At the same time the right of private defence of the body as enshrined in law should be seen to be applicable in equal measure for members of the law enforcement body.

The assault on police needs to be looked at in the background of the wider political canvas. While targeting lawmen could not be a mode of political protest, it needs to be seen whether a situation is, willy-nilly, emerging wherein violence becomes the sole alternative. If that be so, it would be extremely difficult to manage public safety by police actions. In the meantime the state should take actions that would substantially reduce human casualties on all sides.

Coming to specifics, we have to know if there are quarters that seek a political statement in acts of straightforward terror. We cannot countenance a situation where all the human rights are reserved for the practitioners of violence, while the government dealing with the menace is arraigned day and night on grounds of violation of human rights. What is needed is to delineate the parameters that harmonise the defence of political and democratic integrity with the respect for human rights.

When the protector is attacked the signal is one of governance deficit. While law enforcement managers will have to firmly and appropriately deal with the emerging menace those in the business of politics have to ensure that a public agency maintained by public exchequer is not thrust into an adversarial role vis-a-vis the members of public. Affairs of the state demand pragmatic attention.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is a columnist for The Daily Star.