A Bit of Bobby Bashing

By Maxwell Pereira

Shocking! No. Not done! Something not expected of the London Bobby! Not expected of any police force or enforcement authority for that matter – the killing of an innocent in the name of fighting terrorism.

The British police have understandably come under fire for brutally killing Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent man who was in no way connected with the Thursday Sept 21 attempted bombings in London. Shock and anger all around, locally, internationally, as it emerged that the man shot dead by policemen in plainclothes in front of terrified commuters at the Stockwell underground Metro station in south London on the Friday that followed was neither carrying a bomb as had been alleged nor was he among the four men suspected to be behind Thursday's incidents.

The man whom even Tony Blair had initially claimed in front of television cameras was "directly linked" to the investigation of Thursday's attacks, was found after verification as having no connection whatsoever to the bomb attempts. Then on Sunday, Prime Minister Blair said “This is a tragedy. The Metropolitan Police accepts full responsibility for this. To the family, I can only express my deep regrets."

The PM however defended the shoot-to-kill policy, saying such action only applied when lives were believed to be at risk. The head of Scotland Yard has further gone on to say that he won't change the groundrule: "Shoot to kill, in order to protect." Scotland Yard also said the shooting had been a "tragedy'' which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.

It would be interesting for socio-analysts and human rights activists to compare the this and the resultant scenarios that emerged in respect of killings of like nature, of innocents, in Britain and in India. For India has long been accused by everyone all over, and particularly the Rights Watchers, who invariably have made it their pleasure to do some India bashing on this score.

It is obvious the London shooting has added to the pressure on a police force that's already stressed. Stunned eyewitnesses have stated how they saw a man chased by policemen in plainclothes, who shot him from point blank range as he stumbled while trying to get on to a train that had just pulled in. As he tripped and fell, officers pinned him down and pumped at least five bullets into him as passengers watched in horror. The police had continued to fire long after he was dead.

To most onlookers and perhaps the pursuing policemen too, the Brazilian Menezes looked an Asian who was seen running on to the train hotly pursued by three plainclothes officers. One of them was carrying a black handgun — they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him.

Carefully study every word of how the act was described by the onlookers. This was not the act of rational sane normal human beings – be they policemen, but of those paranoid, highly stressed, under pressure to face something for which they were not fully prepared. Under pressure from a people with their stiff upper lip who boasted of the stocism, their resilience, to carry on come what may. All the great stoicism and resilience at risk of cracks in the edifice, when the second wave of bombings were attempted.

When India cried hoarse for years as a victim of terrorism, the world merely paid lip service. For the so called developed great western nations – be they of the Americas or those of the European continent, such who indulged in acts of violence, in attrocities and innocent killings in the name of Kashmir, Punjab or the North-eastern separatist movements, were all mere militants and insurgents fighting for a cause; patriots who had a just agenda. They were no terrorists nor described as such, by any of these nations.

But now when its their turn, and the agitated aggrieved have started knocking at their very door, they have woken up to the reality of terrorism, and its facets have dawned on them. Everyone agrees now that these are terrorists, their acts are of terrorism. No one says that these are Jihadis with a cause, who perhaps have cherished suppressed anger enough to be motivated enough to discard their own life and be suicide bombers. To justify victimising innocents by their acts of violence. As perhaps it is now right for those fighting terrorism to kill innocents “to save the people”.

And how easy for us to blame it on a religion, without really trying to tackle the route causes which are all so glaringly visible!

A word before I end, on the pol;ice reaction. The Indian police over years of tackling terrorism have honed their skills on the lint stone of experience. Their expertise hasn’t come in a day, be it in their efficiency in anticipating likely terrorist moves, interception and surveillance, collection of intelligence, or in ground level execution. The brashness and highhandedness being exhibited by the American enforcer and his British counterpart is the reaction of an inexperienced bumbling amateur. Given time, things should change…. I hope without having to face more acts of terrorism!

850 words: 26.07.2005: Copyright © Maxwell Pereira:
Available at: 3725 Sector-23 Gurgaon-122001;
mfjpkamath@gmail.com & http:/www.planetindia.net.maxwell

Comments:

Anthony Pereira : London: 26 July 2005
For an ex cop, I have to say that was a rather one sided article. While most people, including me, feel the shooting was over the top, you have to put it into perspective.

From that of the police:
- its the day after the failed bombing attempt
- the man emerged from a house under surveilence
- when challenged, he fled
- reportedly wearing some sort of a belt with wires protruding
- with officers in persuit, he runs into a tube station!
- he keeps running and gets onto a train.
- is he? is he not? can they take the chance? would you?
- they shoot, not 5 but 8 shots, killing him.

From that of the victim:
- he's off for a day of work to apparently install an alarm
- suddenly a bunch of hard looking chaps confront him, possibly with guns visible
- perhaps images of Brazillian shanti towns and the violence that goes with that cause him to run away
- he doesn't stop, perhaps thinking he's going to be mugged
- deciding to run into what might normally be a safe environment, he enters the tube station
- whatever his reasons, he doesn't stop, and the rest we know.

Its too difficult to point fingers. What if they hadn't shot him? What if he had been another bomber? Its no point trying to ask what if. The police did what they had to do. They got it wrong. And trying to say that the police are inexperienced at fighting terrorism is clearly wrong. They've had it for several decades with Northern Ireland and the bombing campaigns of the 80s.
But, suicide bombings clearly are a new kettle of fish. Its no longer just on TV, its here. As the cliche goes, the rules of ngagement have changed.

If you want to pick out mistakes:
The poilice: they should never have even let him get anywhere near the tube station. He should have been caught as soon as they decided to stop him. If they had to, they should have shot to disable when he was less of a threat, i.e. outside in the open.
The victim: he should neve have entered the tube station. The day after bombing attempts, with the place swarming with cops. He should have stopped and surrendered himself, whether they be cops or muggers.
Shooting him was not a mistake. They didn't have a choice. Shooting him 8 times in the head, that was a bit much. Using these scenarios to say how good the Indian Police are, just rings hollow I'm afraid. If you say that they'd have done something differently, given the situation, you'd have to have a pretty good example.

MP(In response)
I don't see myself disagreeing with any of your analysis, any of your comments and reactions.

While it is heartening to note the reactions viewed and voiced from diferent angles, from different perspectives etc, I am at the same time disappointed in my own inability to have driven home a very pertinent point that I have tried to make in the article. The point u have missed is about the minimal but pertinent comparison I have made between Indian and British conditions... and the stubborn bias that has refused to go from the Brit or western mind while dealing with or concerning India and Indians.

What would an Indian father have felt, watching television and listening to how an Asian youngster was killed point blank without giving him a single chance to explain or be verified. And for a full 24 hours the police giving no details of the killing, the identity of the victim, and so on. The victim so ruthlessly killed with no explanation, could have been any father's son!!!!

Being an ex-cop, one can picture exactly how things work.... and the article was written from that perspective. When praise was due, I gave it - that was in my article two weeks ago, on "Covering Bomb Blasts". I still admire the manner in which technology support has quickly been assimilated, analysed and disseminated to identity the likely killers (attempted bombers) by releasing their photographs from surveillance cameras and so on. But when I see bungling, I am equally perceptive and harsh in my treatment of the same.

I have relentlessly advocated against killing even the worst criminal without warning and by taking him unawares. Ninety percent of the so called encounters in India are in reality just pumping in bullets into the one killed after surrounding him, cornering him, and without giving him an iota of a chance at survival. Delhi Police Commissioner Nikhi Kumar lost his job only over one such encounter in broad daylight in Connaught Place where innocents mistakenly thought to be dacoits were killed by the special hit squad. And I saw exactly that stuff kind of stuff emerging from the much lauded Bobby. I still hold, the reaction to kill in the manner it was done, was the act of someone totally removed from reality of life, someone totally stressed out, and without control of his own senses or faculties.

And how come the Ashes are fought over at Lords? If just prior to a cricketing season there is a bomb blast in India, what is the reaction of the teams fro Britain Australia and so on? And how often are travel advisaries given by these nations and mostly USA to their citizens, not to travel to India because of unsafe conditions? Life shd go on as normal when things happen on the streets of London or the tube of London, killing dozens of innocents. But avoid India when things happen here. Don't let things normalize, or appear normal. Ha....

Well, there are arguments on either side. It is never one sided.
What thrills me most amidst all this debate, is the very thought that my son has taken pains to read through my articles and reacted to it.