Author: Ajit Kumar Doval
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: August 4, 2010
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/complicated-encounters/655825/0
Beware of half truths - because you may be
holding the wrong half. After having seen and read so much about the Sohrabuddin
episode in the last five years, one might believe one knows it all. Sohrabuddin
is now cast as an innocent victim of police excess.
However, it would be worthwhile to explore
the real facts about Sohrabuddin, the nature of police encounters, and the
real issues at stake. Sohrabuddin was an underworld gangster who was involved
in nearly two dozen serious criminal offences in states of Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. He maintained transnational links with anti-India
forces from the early '90s onwards, until his death in 2005. Working with
mafia dons like Dawood Ibrahim and Abdul Latif, he procured weapons and explosives
from Pakistan and supplied them to various terrorist and anti-national groups
(had it not been for his activity, at least some terrorist acts could have
been averted). Sohrabuddin was solidly entrenched in the criminal world for
a decade-and-a-half. Around the time he was killed, the Rajasthan government
had announced a reward on his head. In 1999, he had been detained under the
National Security Act by the Madhya Pradesh government.
In a 1994 case investigated by the Ahmedabad
crime branch, he was co-accused along with Dawood Ibrahim and convicted for
five years, for waging war against the Government of India, planning an attack
on the Jagannath rath yatra in Orissa, and other offences under the IPC, Arms
Act, etc. During the investigation, 24 AK-56 rifles, 27 hand grenades, 5250
cartridges, 81 magazines and more were seized from his family home in Madhya
Pradesh. In 2004, a fourth crime was registered against him by Chandgad police
station of Kolhapur district in Maharashtra under sections 302, 120 (b), and
25 (1) (3) of the Arms Act, for the killing of Gopal Tukaram Badivadekar.
As fear of him often silenced people from reporting his whereabouts, let alone
deposing against him, the Rajasthan government had to announce a reward on
his head after he killed Hamid Lata in broad daylight in the heart of Udaipur,
on December 31, 2004. So much for Sohrabuddin's innocence.
However, irrespective of who Sohrabuddin was
and what he did, the use of unaccountable force against him is indefensible
is the public view of many (often at variance with their private view). There
are many who feel that there is a higher rationale for such actions in compelling
circumstances, as the law of the land has repeatedly found itself helpless
in dealing with individuals bent on bleeding the country. Their argument,
that the rule of law is a means to an end and not an end in itself, often
finds support in the jurisprudential principles of salus populi est suprema
lex (the people's welfare is the supreme law) and salus res publica est suprema
lex (the safety of the nation is supreme law). Even the Supreme Court of India,
in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [1997 (1) SCC 416] accepted
the validity of these two principles and characterised them as "not only
important and relevant, but lying at the heart of the doctrine that welfare
of an individual must yield to that of the community." The validity of
the principles of salus populi est suprema lex and salus res publica est suprema
lex could have been part of an enlightened national discourse, and what could
be the governing instrumentalities, empowerments, legal checks and stringent
processes if these principles were to be invoked. It is better to accept reality
as it is and then strive to change it for the better, rather than what we
wish it to be. Feigned ignorance is the worst type of hypocrisy.
But there is another vital question that needs
to be addressed. While pursuing the Sohrabuddin case, was the government really
serious about stopping the menace of fake encounters, or was it pursuing a
different agenda? Encounters have been taking place all over the country under
all regimes, at times degenerating into what are called fake encounters. Between
2000 and 2007 there have been 712 cases of police encounters in the country
with UP topping the list at 324, and Gujarat figuring almost at the bottom
with 17.
In some of the cases there was not much on
record, even to establish the criminal past of those killed. Settling political
scores through security and investigative agencies like the CBI is not only
bad politics, but also destructive for the nation's security. To convey the
impression (explicitly or implicitly) that Sohrabuddin was targeted for belonging
to a particular community, thereby creating a sense of insecurity in a section
of society, is detrimental to national interests. It is little known that
a large number of Sohrabuddin's victims were Muslims while a good number of
his closest associates (including Tulsiram Prajapati, who was also killed
in a similar encounter), were Hindu. William Blake could not have been more
right when he said that "a truth that is pursued with bad intent beats
all the lies you can invent".
The other negative impact of the Sohrabuddin
case is the impression it is creating that all encounters in which police
and security forces are involved, are fake. Society needs to be reassured
that the majority of encounters are genuine and mostly in response to murderous
attacks on security personnel. The fact that, on average, over 1,200 policemen
get killed every year grappling with terrorists, insurgents, underworld mafia
and other anti-social elements, bears ample testimony to this fact. Playing
up a few aberrations and blowing them out of proportion and presenting them
as the only truth is not in the national interest.
The other downside of the publicity around
such cases is that it erodes the people's trust in governance. Administrations
begin to be seen as instruments of repression and self-aggrandisement and
politicians as perceived as manipulating their power for political and personal
gains. This erosion can lead to a dangerous delegitimisation of the polity.
Democratic politics is an exercise in regime-legitimisation, and to lose the
confidence of the governed would set the government on a self-destructive
path.
- The writer is former director of the Intelligence
Bureau
