SOME LIVES ARE MORE PRECIOUS THAN OTHERS

                                  SOME LIVES ARE MORE PRECIOUS THAN OTHERS

Despite the emphasis on ‘EQUALITY’ in our Constitution nowhere is it mentioned that all human lives are equally valuable. Had it said so we would not find state ‘protectees’ guarded by our elite forces at the cost of us aam aadmi who are left bhagwan bharose. Prime Minister Naendra  Modi’ s public utterances did raise hopes that he really meant to eliminate VIPsm from society. Sadly he stopped short at removing beacon lights from cars.

India is among the least policed countries in the world. According to reports appearing in the media from time to time, with just one policeman for 761 persons India has fewer cops per capita.  If you deduct the numbers diverted to VIP security the ratio will come down further. In contrast, there are as many as 47,557 cops protecting 14,842 VIPs across the country which comes to a ratio of three to one. If the UPA was benevolent in doling out VIP security, which is mostly seen as a status symbol, the present NDA government has been no less generous.

Roughly 400 VVIPs get different levels of security (X,Y, Z, Z+) from the central pool  on the basis of their `positions’ or threat perceptions. There are close to forty in Z+ category. Forty-five personnel drawn from premier para-military agencies provide each of them and their family members round-the-clock escort and static security at their respective houses. Each one of them is provided a bulletproof car along with escort cars wherever they travel in the country. Not only this, state governments have to provide territorial security to all these VVIPs, when they visit their states. The prestige attached to the presence of commandos has a trickledown effect on these states, which have drawn their own list of VVIPs to be guarded by locally raised commandos. States have their own list of VIPs guarded by men drawn from the district police thus depleting the strength of the police stations and in turn depriving the common man of the minimal security he might have expected.

The list of ‘protectee’ VVIPs is fattening each day, In its defence the central Government says that it has constituted a committee under the Union Home Secretary to decide on who should get security and how much going entirely by threat perception. There is no transparency and consistency in the assessment to be reviewed annually. It is common knowledge that finally the decision is not bureaucratic but political. You scratch my back and I scratch your. There is a quid pro quo between the Congress and BJP to provide SPG cover to bed-ridden Atal Behari Vajpayee as a justification to do the same for Sonia Gandhi and her kin. Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, George Fernanandes and Ashok Singhal, to name only a few, have not been heard of nor  seen in public for several years but their lives continue to be ‘perceived’ as threatened.

On does not mind persons holding important and sensitive positions being secured at the tax payer’s expense during their incumbency only. The public find it difficult to digest the same privilege being offered to the ‘formers’ and ‘futures’. It galls to see the likes of Laloo Yadav, Pappu Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mayawati and A Raja, enjoying X.Y, Z category despite being criminally indicted. Such high-profile security makes them into instant celebrities. By contrast there is not even one unarmed constable for people like us who, in their police career spanning decades, sent many to jail and may be some to gallows.

In this country of 1.25 billion people, only a chosen few get security. Even where threat perception is obvious and danger imminent the common man gets no help. In thousands of such cases, people are still losing their lives. Most vulnerable is our fourth estate. Attacks, often fatal, on our media persons have become too frequent. They deserve adequate personal security. The sadhwis who showed exemplary courage in complaining against Ram Rahim, the CBI DIG who painstakingly investigated the case and the judge who convicted the pseudo Baba are the real heroes and were threatened more than once. It is citizens like them who deserve to be protected.

Shouldn’t state security shrug the VVIP tag and become available to everyone?

Sudhir Kumar Jha

(The author is a former Director General of Police, Bihar and a free-lance writer.)

                                      THE DRAGON WILL NOT STOP HISSISNG

The debacle of October-November 1962 when China overran our territory in NEFA (North East Frontier Agency) disgraced us but also jolted us out of complacency born of the five principles of Panchsheel. The army retreated to the foothills to reorganize. The Ministry of Home Affaairs asked the Intelligence Bureau to set up intelligence out posts at intervals along the Mcmahon Line, a notional line drawn up by the British more than a century ago, demarcating India-China border. A large expanse on either side was to be the no-man’s land.  Armed police battalions were taken on loan from some states to give armed cover, in platoon strength, to these posts. Bihar sent its Gurkha Military Police battalion with me as the Commanding Officer. For us it was a non-family posting with free ration. We had the operational charge of the entire Subansiri Division with headquarters at Ziro. I had then asked the Director, Intelligence Bureau, how a platoon of armed police could take on the Chinese army  only to be told that we were only cannon fodder; our role was limited to keeping the IB informed  about the intrusion.

Few in the country had heard of NEFA, now Arunachal, until the Chinese aggression. The Agency was administered by the Ministry of External Affairs. The Chinese argued that India herself treated NEFA as a foreign territory and had therefore placed it under the MEA. The administration of NEFA was run through a ‘single line’ hierarchy of officials headed by the Political Officer who belonged to the newly created Indian Frontier Administrative Service. PO was the District Magistrate, Collector, Judge and Superintendent of Police all rolled into one. Under him he had Assistant Pos at the middle level and Base Superintendents at the bottom. In 1965 the area was brought under the Ministry of Home affairs and the PO was designated as Deputy Commissioner.  Entry into NEFA was restricted; you could enter only with an ‘Inner Line’ permit. In farthest north we had the McMahon Line. NEFA could thus be described in three ‘lines’. I detrained at North Lakhimpur in September 1964 and started for Ziro, hundred odd kilometers away, by jeep. My unit had already been there for some time.  My journey took nearly eight hours as roads were practically non-existent. The Border Roads Organisation were blasting away to lay new alignments.

Our outposts had the Chinese as next door neighbours. Local tribals, few in number, would carry tales from one side to the other. The Chinese refrain was how they did not look like Indians and how Indians had fled away in 1962 leaving them to their fate and that they should expect no better the next time. Luckily the threats and blandishment did not cut much ice. ‘Neighbour’s envy’ was writ large on the Chinese words and actions. During the Indo-Pak war of 1965, finding Pakistan on a losing wicket, China issued an ultimatum to India to stop the war or else. We in NEFA remained on stand-to alert for fifteen days by which time the crisis was over.

 I set out on inspection tour in November-December 1966. I may be the only IPS officer to have trekked along the Mcmahon Line for forty five days and to have inspected all my posts. Distance between two posts was expressed in terms of so many days’ march. The going was tough but then I was young and fit. There were no roads, not even tracks at places, and at places we had to monkey crawl and climb. I had with me my Gurkha bodyguards and some porters. Being hilly people Gurkhas were used to climbing up and down. Initially I found crossing cane suspension bridges over fast flowing Himalayan rivers daunting but soon got the hang of it. An army helicopter carried us to our post at Nacho and after that three days march to our company headquarters at Limeking. From there the tracks forked right and left to Taksing and Maaja. We spent one night at our post at Maaja at a height of 7500 feet.. Next morning as we were getting ready for onward journey when my platoon commander informed me that the Chinese troops about 100 strong had crossed into the no-man’s land and set up camp about a kilometer from our post, within  shouting range so to say. I decided to stay on. It now became a battle of nerves. Our standing instruction in such a situation was to stand fast but make no provoking gesture. So we watched and waited, eye ball to eye ball. It was the oft repeated Chinese tactic to test if we ran away in fear or stood our ground. After two days the Chinese went back and we resumed our onward journey.

Our next halt was Taksing a bigger place than Maaja and not desolate at all. It was the headquarters of Assistant PO. It was flat land with a Buddhist monastery, Lamas and yaks. At a height of 8500 feet it looked like an extension of the Tibetan plateau.  One of our patrolling parties had come across an empty packet of Chinmin cigarettes popular in China and an item of free army supply. Not much excitement there and we tracked back uneventfully to Nacho from where we were airlifted to Daporijo which had by then become my battalion headquarters.

I do not trust the Chinese. Their intentions are as inscrutable as their faces. They are bullies and should be dealt with as such. Our troops standing their ground at Dakolam is a befitting rebuff to them. Today it is Doklam and Pangong, tomorrow it can be some other place. The Dragon may not always spit fire but it will not stop hissing.

Sudhir Kumar Jha

Patna          19 August 2017

(Author can be contacted at  sudhirjhapatna@gmail.com)

                                 TERROR ATTACKS AND BRITISH RESPONSE    

Europe is the latest front in the Islamic terror strikes on the West. Deadly strikes hit Brussels, Germany and elsewhere over the past year.  Assailants linked to the Islamic State attacked a concert hall, stadium and restaurants and bars in Paris in November, 2016 killing 130. Will the Vatican be next? A newspaper cutting featuring a Nostradamus prediction foreseeing a “Muslim army” marching through Europe went viral in the wake of the Paris atrocities. Did the 16th century mystic philosopher foresee the rise of the murderous ISIS cult?

Britain’s brush with terrorism is not new. The island kingdom  suffered attacks in the latter part of the twentieth century carried out by various Irish Republican Army (IRA) groups linked to the Northern Ireland conflict and  attacks by Middle Eastern terrorist groups linked to the Arab–Israeli conflict. What is new is that recent terrorist incidents have been linked to Islamic fundamentalism employing  fidayeen suicide attacks where terrorists launch a raid knowing they will probably die and aim to kill as many as they can. On July 7, 2005 four separate Islamist extremist suicide bombers detonated bombs on three underground trains and a double decker bus killing 56 civilians and injuring 700. After a lull (or heightened alertness post-9/11 in US?) of a dozen years the country has been hit by a series of terror attacks in 2017.

On 22 March 2017 six people, including the attacker, died and 50 people were injured in a terror attack near the Houses of Parliament.  Khalid Masood mounted the pavement in a hired car and drove into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge. He then ran towards Parliament and stabbed a police officer to death before being shot dead by officers.

On 22 May an attack in Manchester Arena left 22 people dead and 59 injured.  The suicide  bomber, Salman Ramadan Abedi, 22, was born in Manchester to Libyan parents. Abedi travelled between Libya and Britain, and was known to intelligence agencies in Germany and France.

 On 3 June a white van hit pedestrians on London Bridge before three men got out of the vehicle and began stabbing people in nearby Borough Market leaving seven people dead and 48 injured. The suspects were shot dead by police minutes later.  Khuram Butt, 27, a British national who was born in Pakistan, is believed to be the ringleader. Butt was open about his extremist views and was known among the public as such. But despite receiving calls from concerned members of the public about Butt’s increasingly radical views, police concluded that he was not a threat and the investigation was scaled back. Butt is the third terrorist in recent months to carry out an attack despite being known to security services. . Confronted with public outrage Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley of London Police admitted Butt was known to police and MI5 but said there had been no evidence of "attack planning" and he had been deemed as a 'low priority.'

The attacks took place close to the general election on June 8. An exasperated Prime Minister Theresa May In a speech outside Downing Street   rounded on those who "tolerate" extremism as she told them: "Enough is enough.” She also made clear that county councils must play their part by breaking up ghettos where “evil” ideology can breed and stopping it spreading in schools. She may as well have said that local police must put in their bit .The Bobby in course of his beat patrolling knew and was known to each household and residents would confide in him any suspicious arrivals or absences. Lately police have largely abandoned visits to racially sensitive areas. Any law enforcement in these areas is treated with a simmering resentment which quickly erupts into violence. The easy option for the police has been to designate them as "no-go areas". It is worth mentioning that county police, of which Bobby is a part, is neither under nor have regular exchanges with the Metropolitan Police or the MI5.

Security and intelligence agencies have been and will continue to remain whipping boys in the blame game. Under the circumstances they have not done too badly. It is not as if the security services had lost control. While there had been three attacks since March, another five alleged plots had been foiled in the same period. They said it was difficult to prevent attacks that involved knives which gives the attacks a new dimension.

The bomb attacks on London have raised questions about how Britain's counter-terrorist services handle radical Islamists with suspected ties to terror groups and have emphasised differences between the UK and US. One of the striking areas of contrast is the degree to which each government legislates against the expression of unpopular, offensive or ‘extremist’ views, particularly those attributed to members of Muslim community. While both countries have long traditions of protecting the freedom of expression, the UK government has shown increasing tendency to legislate against allegedly ‘extremist’ speech, even in the absence of a connection to substantial criminal steps or potential violence.  By contrast, the US government has been particularly loath to intervene or legislate against the expression of unpopular, offensive or ‘extremist’ views so long as that speech is unconnected to violent or criminal action. As well as gathering more information about other components of a suspected cell, British tactics are also aimed at gathering evidence that will stand up in court. But US agencies have preferred early action against suspects in the hope that doing so will nip the possible plots in the bud and unnerve other conspirators.

Following 9/11 American approach has been more aggressive and direct with the result that there has been no major terrorist attack there after 2001. First, the US treats the fight against terrorism as a “war.” Consequently, there has been a heavy input from the Defense Department and armed forces in disrupting terrorist networks,  al-Qaida  most of all and now ISIS. The extraterritorial nature of al-Qaida led the Americans to view the threat’s external dimension. Consequently, the US approach consistently has been to “take the fight” to the enemy and push the borders out. Additionally, the US approach has been proactive promoting reform and democracy in the Middle East, recognizing that economic and democratic opportunities are needed to counter radicalized ideologies.

Britain seems to have neither the will nor the resources to go that far. She is caught in her own dilemma of making a choice between freedom and security. We would all like to have full freedom and total security.   The two do not co-exist in real life. We lose some to gain some. If life sans freedom is unthinkable, a life led in terror is not a life worth living. To strike the right balance between the two remains the biggest challenge before Britain today. If she goes too far she may be portrayed as a police state; if she does not she will be seen as a soft state and continue getting hit. ‘Thus far and no farther’ is no easy decision to make.

 What makes things worse for Britain is her over concern for human rights.  Having lambasted the autocratic regimes in the Arab world all these years for human rights violation spy glasses are constantly turned on Britain for any signs of similar transgression. Her erstwhile colonies even today accuse her of double standards, civil at home and barbarian abroad. She has to tread carefully. The Human Rights Act has played a crucial role in restricting the scope of counter-terrorism measures in Britain. The Act has also had a major influence upon which foreign terror suspects can be deported from Britain for preaching hate, or actually planning an atrocity. The 2001 legislation in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States allowed terror suspects to be detained without charge – leading it to be described by Amnesty International as “draconian” – but by 2004, the House of Lords had declared it incompatible with human rights. The security services are left to deal with terrorism with one arm tied behind their backs.

Sudhir Kumar Jha

(The author is retired Director General of Police, Bihar and a free-lance writer)