Rape Of Reason

By Sanjay Pinto

The shockingly insensitive ‘they asked for it’ stance of Delhi cops towards rape victims, exposed by an NDTV-Tehelka sting operation is an SOS to the khakhi top brass in the country. The thinking betrays a deep rooted prejudice, perhaps at one level even connivance with the perpetrators, an anti victim, male chauvinistic, sexist, mindset and either cynicism or  impotence of those black  sheep meant to protect; and when that fails, to investigate and prosecute. I’m using the term black sheep because not all cops are bad. Some take an extreme position and mete out their own ‘justice’ to criminals accused of rape. No right thinking person will hold a brief for this either.

For starters, how many women would feel safe in an average police station in the country? The record of custodial rapes is another story in itself. But to suggest that the victim “deserved” to be raped is the most perverse form of escapism. No citizen deserves a crime. Every citizen deserves safety and protection. It’s only criminals who deserve punishment. What’s frightening is that almost all the cops exposed are Inspectors, who are invariably the investigating officers of crime. The police station constitutes the cutting edge of the department. So when these key players in the criminal justice system make excuses and indulge in a shameless blame game, wouldn’t it embolden criminals?  Don’t we also run the risk of botched up investigation? An investigation into a rape calls for forensic expertise –  meticulous collection of evidence ranging from blood, finger nails and skin to semen samples and strands of hair. It also calls for circumstantial evidence to puncture the trademark defence – alibi. If an officer carries the baggage of preconceived notions about the victim, wouldn’t that  itself be a perfect setting for investigative oversight and ultimately,  an acquittal?

It’s not the job of an officer to dole out character certificates or sit in judgment over the version of an alleged victim. That’s for the court to adjudicate. But if a cop rustles up weak evidence, the public prosecutor would be helpless in preventing a chargesheet from falling by the wayside, from witnesses turning hostile and sometimes, even the victim giving up. Take a look at where the law stands on the issue of ‘character’. Under Section 54 of the Evidence Act, the bad character of an accused person is not relevant. Much more irrelevant in the case of a victim! Even a commercial sex worker can be raped. So what are those talking through berets?  And look at what the Supreme Court had to say about the testimony of  rape victims. In State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh, the apex court made it clear that the victim’s evidence alone is sufficient to convict. The rationale was telling: “In a case of rape, no self respecting woman would come forward in a court to make a humiliating statement against her honour.” Criminal trial can be quite traumatic for  a rape victim.

What I find most ridiculous is the argument on dressing as a trigger for a crime of passion. Lust, like beauty, also lies in the eye of the beholder. Actor-politician Khushbu made an interesting point. “There are scores of women who are harassed although they are clad in traditional attire.” Public prosecutors  will tell you  it’s not always lust that drives a person to rape. Sift through the clutter of Section 375 Indian Penal Code cases and you will come across other factors like a perverse desire to show authority or to demonstrate superiority over hapless victims. What else would explain the gang rapes of tribal women in Tamilnadu’s Vachhathi village two decades ago? A conviction of 169 officers came just last year!  Just recently, an 82 year old woman was allegedly raped by a 32 year old man. It took a public outcry and medical reports for the  police to take the word of relatives seriously and arrest the man accused of committing the crime. The outrageous ‘dress logic’ also came to the fore a few years ago when a Vice Chancellor of a University in Chennai banned jeans and T Shirts on the campus because “professors may get distracted.”  

The reference to loose morals is equally frivolous. Whose morals, please? By whose standards? Here’s another grossly misrepresented provision of law, that  is reflected in movies. An unmarried couple found together in a hotel room. A knock at the door. And the next scene is of the duo being driven away in a police jeep! The Suppression Of Immoral Traffic Act does not apply to consenting adults. It only makes living out of earning through prostitution, involving soliciting  in a public place, an offence. The Supreme Court has even recognised live in relationships. Consensual sex, as long as the girl is above sixteen, is not the business of a man in khakhi.  The police-public ratio is terribly skewed in our country. The crime graph is rising. And the curriculum in our police training academies needs an overhaul and a definite inclusion of gender sensitisation modules. The cops have their task cut out. Georges Clemenceau once quipped: “war is too serious a matter to be left to military men.” Perhaps sermonising is too complicated a task for the police! 

Riding Two Horses

By Sanjay Pinto

What’s  the biggest draw the legal profession? At the end of the day, it's  not money. It’s  ‘independence’.  Lawyers have no masters or employers and are under no one; only accountable to God . Or ‘My Lord’, if you please! But the biggest obstacle for fresh law graduates who have no grandfather or father or god father in the profession is the reality  - of a trickle of vitamin M.  The potential for that trickle to become a torrent is what keeps many going. But after five or six years of college education if you have to put your heart and soul into your work and still not make enough to keep the two together, what’s the way out? Faced with this quandary – of  being ‘legally broke’ or marginally better with a flea bite of a cheque as ‘stipend’, several young, bright law graduates hang up their gowns and  opt for employment.  Often, it’s the monetary factor that  weans away budding lawyers.

The Bar Council of India and of the various States are meant to regulate the legal profession, set and maintain standards and to some extent, spare a thought for  the welfare of advocates on their rolls. There are extremes in this arena – lawyers who reportedly command a crore per appearance and some who find it difficult to make ends meet.  And there is and can be no fixed gestation period. But can there at least be a subsistence stipend prescribed for juniors? Or how about a new genre of ‘gestation period’ lumpsum  insurance that law colleges can collect from day one?!

It’s against this backdrop that I prefer to analyse the Bar Council’s restriction on employment, reflected in Rules 47 to 52 in Chapter VII.

Under Rule 49, “an advocate shall not be a full-time employee of any person, Government, firm, corporation or concern and on taking up such employment, shall intimate such fact to the Bar Council concerned and shall cease to practise as long as he is in such employment.”

The rationale was spell out by the Supreme Court in Dr.Haniraj L.Chulani Vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa, It observed that “the legal profession requires full time attention and would not countenance an Advocate riding two horses or more at a time”. 

With no disrespect meant to any individual or body, I do want to know why an advocate should not be allowed to have a second income, at least for the first five years after enrolment when the regular income would usually be negligible?  This is not to suggest that an Advocate can neglect his duty to the client. "Upholding the interest of clients by all fair and honourable means" does not necessarily have to do with how many irons in the fire an Advocate has. An Advocate who has a steady flow of another legitimate income is less likely to fleece a client! For an Advocate who does not don any other hat, what happens when several of his or her cases come up in court at the same time? Client servicing can be of the highest order with effective time management and delegation.  Law students are invariably in the forefront of many an agitation but why can’t they take up their own cause, their own  Right To Livelihood (and I’m not talking about the Govt’s  32 rupee a day poverty yardstick, by the way!) flowing from the Right To Live under Article 21 of the Constitution, that includes the right to a living wage?  If not two horses, how about a horse and a pony?! Doesn’t this restriction fly in the face of Art 19 (1) (g) that guarantees citizens freedom to practice any profession or trade?

The ‘two horses’ argument  does not apply to Advocates who are appointed by the Govt as law officers, even though they draw salaries. What’s more, they are allowed to retain their private practice. Members of Parliament who draw salaries can also ride two horses. Extending the ‘undivided attention’  logic to the case of MPs as advocates, shouldn’t the people they represent also be entitled to undivided attention? Unless, ‘we the people’ are viewed as donkeys! How can we have two classes of citizens or professions – one that must suspend practice within ninety days of taking up employment and the other that can go on till thy kingdom come? (Because a lawyer need not retire!) Is this not discriminatory?

There are small concessions for the ‘other class’ in the form of ‘part time employment’ but with a rider. In the opinion of the Bar Council, that job should not be in conflict with the dignity of the profession or affect one’s functioning as an advocate. (Incidentally, a legal commentator once wondered if strikes are not in conflict with the dignity of the profession!) At a practical level, if an advocate has juniors or colleagues in a firm to handle clients and their cases, how is that a problem?

However, the biggest consolation is in the form of Rule 51. “An advocate may review Parliamentary Bills for a remuneration, edit legal text books at a salary, do press-vetting for newspapers, coach pupils for legal examination, set and examine question papers; and subject to the rules against advertising and full-time employment, engage in broadcasting, journalism, lecturing and teaching subjects, both legal and non-legal.” As far as the teaching assignment in a recognised University is concerned, there is a reasonable three hour a day ceiling. 

What if an advocate takes up Consultancy? Quite like the Corporate retainer arrangements many lawyers and firms have. Several senior advocates have clarified that such a scenario does not warrant voluntary suspension of practice. Here the key provision is ‘employment’. What is relevant is the existence of a master-servant relationship. The most telling indication is the form of remuneration. If a Consultant is not on the rolls of a company or organisation,  does not figure in the attendance register,  does not get a ‘salary’; but a mere retainer fee based on invoices raised, is not entitled to provident fund and other benefits, raises service tax, which employees do not remit, the test of ‘employment’ is negative.

The Bar Councils should go by the spirit of the rule and a sympathetic understanding of the ground reality – that legal practice is fraught with a long struggle. In those formative years, why grudge the few bucks an advocate can earn through an alternative source in order to survive in the profession? The highest respect you can show to a profession is to join it! So let  Resul Pookutty, who fulfilled his father's dream by getting enrolled as an advocate, score his melodies in tinsel town and be allowed to have his legal music too!

Intolerance: A National Pastime?

By Sanjay Pinto

What an irony. A country that is governed by the Rule Of Law with natural justice as its fundamental edifice, is plagued by the syndrome of intolerance ever so often. Prejudging content, often without even viewing or reading it, has become a national pastime.  Whether it is a movie or a book or an innocuous statement, the devil truly lies out of the context! And this is a dangerous trend because it makes a mockery of the most precious fundamental right of free speech under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Fundamental Rights are not merely granted but guaranteed to citizens. Yet, not just fringe groups but even State Governments sometimes tend to play to the gallery by banning books or films.

After the Salman Rushdie saga in Jaipur, Peter Heehs is the latest author to come under fire for a biography of Sri Surobindo. Furious devotees at the Aurobindo Ashram in the otherwise quiet, sleepy union territory of Puducherry want the book banned and the American historian, who has been reportedly working in the former French Colony for over four decades to digitize the archives of the Indian nationalist and spiritual leader, deported. 

What they find offensive are portions attributing  a communal slant to Sri Aurobindo’s leadership during the freedom struggle, the suggestion that Sri Aurobindo’s spiritualism stemmed from  inherited psychological problems and the hint of  romantic overtones in Sri Aurobindo’s relationship with his spiritual collaborator Mira Alfassa, revered by followers as ‘The Mother. An unfazed Heehs concedes that Sri Aurobindo was a genius and a spiritualist of great standing. What I find odd is that instead of challenging the author on facts and even interpretation, his opponents are merely harping on some rule that inmates of the ashram have no right to write about the guru. Why are we so averse to a healthy debate? Why are we impervious to criticism or mere academic posturing? Why are we intolerant of ‘the other view’?

Orissa, which also has a sizeable chunk of followers of Sri Aurobindo has banned the book.

It is no one’s contention that freedom of expression is an absolute right. If Heehs has defamed anyone; or violated any law, let the law takes its course. There is enough scope in the Indian Penal Code from Section 500 to Section 292 and a slew of other provisions to haul up a person. Let the courts decide if what is said or written, falls under a ‘reasonable restriction’ or not. The rules of discourse cannot be framed on the street.

And passports and visas are separate issues. It’s the call of the authorities; the Home Ministry and the External Affairs Ministry. There are rules governing their extension or rejection, which are completely extraneous to what one writes in a book! The best way to disagree with content is to either ignore by boycotting the work, which will hurt the publisher or come up with a rebuttal.

It’s not just books. Over the last decade and a half, at least 11 films have faced bans in the country; Arakashan being one of the latest in the long line. As a journalist with a legal background, I am truly surprised. A ban of a film, flies in the face of a Supreme Court judgment that holds the field even today. Way back in 1989, the Apex Court ruled in a  case revolving around a Tamil film - ‘Ore Oru Gramathile’, that State governments have no locus standi to ban films that are certified under the Cinematograph  Act of 1952 and The Rules of 1983. The court’s observation was brilliant: “ in a democracy, it is not necessary for everyone to sing the same song.”  Citing a law and order problem is no valid legal reason but only an excuse. State governments know how to muzzle dissent when it comes to their own interests but strangely adopt a weak kneed stance when it suits them! Why do they want to don the role of a parallel Censor Board? 

Remember what happened in the Khushbu case? For simple comments on pre marital sex, she was hounded and greeted with slippers and broomsticks for “insulting” Tamil culture. She could have been made a brand ambassador in the fight against HIV! And many of the protestors had no clue why they were up in arms!

India is not a banana republic. If we can give a terrorist like Kasab a fair trial, surely, authors and filmmakers deserve their space. If they go overboard, let them face the legal music. But let’s not allow anyone to jump out of the four corners of the law.

Anonymity Breeds Defamation

By Sanjay Pinto

Remember those unmanned public telephone booths that needed coins? These instruments  often ended up being misused – either by anti social elements for bomb hoax threats or by hostellers to make unlimited calls  by suspending a one rupee coin with a string and reusing it several times! Why? Because there was no one watching.  

 Anonymity breeds recklessness, a false sense of  bravado and in the absence of  a mechanism to filter content, it fuels internet hooliganism. There are enough mischief mongers online to constitute an Abusers Anonymous movement, akin to Alcoholics Anonymous!  Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for free speech and against attempts to gag dissent. I do understand why censorship is often frowned upon. And how self regulation has emerged as the new catchphrase. Yes, it’s almost impossible to screen every tweet or  status update. But when you can easily  sign up on social networking sites  without revealing your real identity and  get cracking by posing as someone else or posting ridiculously incorrect or misleading information about yourself or rude and even defamatory comments about others, how can you possibly expect a semblance of personal accountability ?

Hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, users tend to adopt a devil may care stance. The tenor of tweets put out by a section of users would make even the most liberal crusaders for free speech think twice about demanding the decriminalisation of defamation. There is intolerance for ‘the other view’,  vulgarity, vituperation and pettifogging in 140 characters. There is mob psychology at play. And there is uncontrolled, apparently unmonitored rudeness on what is meant to be a wonderful platform to “find out what’s happening about people and organisations you care about.” When  Kapil Sibal  tried to demand censorship of some sort, the move was opposed by many in the virtual world because it probably came across as a defence of politicians scared to have their dirty linen washed online.

What recourse does a user who has been defamed have? Facebook has a few options to report abusive comments or tags. Twitter too has a few complaint clauses couched in legalese under its terms of service. But if you have to sue someone, you need to first establish their real identity and source an address for communication of a legal notice or court summons. How do you do that with the social media?!  Twitter claims it is not obliged to divulge internet protocol addresses that originate from non law enforcement agencies outside the US. Even if you complain to the Cyber Crime Cell, you need a mutual legal assistance treaty or a letter rogatory or a sub-peona from a Court in California to get a user’s identification data! Why can’t specific abusive terms be blocked or at least monitored on the social media platforms ? Why can’t they consider insisting on some proof of identity like a mobile number to which a code can be sent as a step to register an account?  

Don’t we all get friend requests from strangers on facebook who have their kindergarten photo or a film star’s grab or some weird sign or a dog or monkey as their profile picture?  Click on the Info button and get a snub – “The user does not share this info with everyone.” Most recipients of such friend requests from strangers look for mutual friends and confirm ‘friendship’ if there is enough common ground. But that’s hardly a precaution as many accept friends to boost their tally! Of course, there are privacy settings but how many use them effectively? It takes a few good Samaritan users to post tips for others to see. The trick is to check if their wall posts are decent enough and if their albums contain genuine pictures that don’t look like they have been sourced from the net. 

 

Fake  profiles, especially for public figures, have become such a nuisance that genuine users are inconvenienced. For instance, the twitter ID ‘Rajdeep Sardesai’ is taken! The original Rajdeep has had to create one in true Olympic list style with ‘Sardesai Rajdeep’! Here, the nature of the tweets - scoops or programming information are usually enough to distinguish a real celebrity from an impostor. 

I know of several people who are active on both; but use facebook to share personal details and views and twitter for their pearls of wisdom on  the goings on in the country. Today, newsmakers don’t need to send a press release or hold a media conference. They can get their message across (without the bother of ‘inconvenient’ questions!) And in a few seconds. In most newsrooms, twitter is slowly overtaking  even news wires as a source of information. When this medium is going to occupy such an important role in our lives, users must be entitled to higher standards of reliability and safety. For starters, let the social media moguls work to ensure that better safeguards against misuse are hemmed in. And let users start reading the terms of service before clicking on the ‘I Agree.’ button.  

NO POST AT SITE ORDERS!

By Sanjay Pinto

Stories that make for dinner table conversations usually find their way to walls, or timelines for those who, as a post lamented, have been “tricked” into the new format. A tale of two events that  played out on the social media; one tragic and the other emotional, in some measure, betrayed our obsession with ‘glamorous issues’. Rahul Dravid putting his willow up in the loft most definitely deserved all the adulatory ‘we will miss you Mr.Dependable’ comments, the likes and the threads. While I don’t for a nano second, grudge the ‘About the Wall On the Wall’ references in cricket crazy India, the  murder of a young IPS officer by the mining mafia in Madhya Pradesh did not seem to provoke enough outrage to find the kind of expression on facebook that it should have. An aberration or a convenient ‘mine’ our business stance? There were the odd tweets ‘When will we get fed up? When will we give ourselves a deadline?’ but this was way below the minimum support posts. Or do we need an Anna Hazare fast again to clear seemingly clogged sensors? Is activity on  the social media sometimes directly proportional to mainstream big brother coverage? Not quite. At least, not in this case which was front page news and a top story on television bulletins, with ample scope for the ‘post at site’ syndrome. 

That it could well be the other way around is no longer an exaggeration. These sites are where the pulse of the common man is felt. This is what often gives arise to a surfeit of story ideas; hard news and offbeat. Facebook and twitter are like manna from heaven to most journalists – not just because of the source of information and many a tip off . It is a magic  platform to  post story links, even video links, as bonus readership or viewership! Not just for  working journalists but for NGOs too. ‘Dow Shall Check Facts’ – a  hard hitting rebuttal by an environmentalist to an article on the Bhopal Gas Tragedy has got considerable traction.  The responses to a facebook link would usually far exceed comments on the original piece. That is because the medium lends itself to more convenient interaction. 

Don’t ignore the angst fast forwarded!  Our dear old Finance Minister has a sea of prescriptions for the economy. And oodles of free advice, perhaps even prophylactic doses from the common man desperate for real  relief from inflation, rather than mere placebo steps. Brace yourself for stinging limericks on the budget! On this subject, a whacky comment against the picture of an actor, well known for item numbers, outside Parliament caught my attention: "Now Ministers don't have to watch stuff on their phones!"  

A picture of the Indian Kabadi team standing on the road with their trophy, allegedly without Govt provided conveyance to reach their homes has been widely commented on. What the mainstream media may have missed or not made a big deal about, mercifully got some attention on this space. 

And finally, “I’m leaving facebook. The ride here has been a blast. I’ve made tons of friends. I’ve enjoyed the wit and humour on the site. But I’ve decided to spend time with the family. So see you after lunch.” The sort of shared post that sets apart an addict from a user. A survey had once revealed that an average youngster spends upto 6 hours on facebook; many ‘chatting the night away’; some logging in before brushing their teeth every morning. The urge to put out personal information at way too frequent intervals, quite like a radio jingle ‘I am eating a burger. I think I added too much mustard. I burped’  is beyond my ken. I heard of a  facebook status message on a rollicking time a person was having at a beach, that  was used by an insurance company to turn down a medical related claim by its  customer who pretended to have sustained a fracture ! Let minute by minute updates remain the preserve of news channels! Don’t we have enough of that anyway?

JUMPING THE GUN?

By Sanjay Pinto

It’s a predictable end to a cop-robber chase in India. In movies and in real life. The criminal is either on the prowl or tries to escape from custody (usually on the way to court) or there is a clash and the police fire in ‘self defence’. The gangster is killed (usually with bullet wounds on the head and chest). A few (usually two) cops are injured (usually on the left hand and waist) . The Police Commissioner visits his wounded soldiers (usually Inspectors or Sub Inspectors) in a Govt hospital, the photographers click pictures of them receiving refreshments (usually apples, sweet limes and Marie biscuits) There is a media briefing after every encounter with the top cop claiming that the police party opened fire in self defence. Journalists all try to punch holes in the police theory (usually speaking at the same time and in English and the vernacular language) with questions like ‘Couldn’t you have caught them alive?’, ‘Why are there bullet wounds only in the head?’ . The Commissioner would often face enough provocation to put his boot in his mouth. The media reports are scathing. Human rights activists scream ‘murder’ from rooftops (usually when hardened criminals are involved). The case is handed over to the Crime Branch. Public interest litigation is kickstarted in the High Court demanding a CBI probe. There are impleading petitions filed as well. There is a Commission Of Enquiry (you can sometimes guess the name of the head, depending on the political regime!)  There are TV debates with anchors trying to out shout  activist guests. Newspapers carry editorials, the common man puts up angry posts on the social media and there are columns by ‘experts’!

Hello and welcome to the same old story!  Police encounters are routine in every State. Data from National Human Rights Commission Reports point to the registration of 1224 fake encounter complaints from 1993 to 2009. Is an ‘encounter’ always an euphemism for staged murder, a short cut to closing a case? Or are activists over react sitting on  arm chairs in  their ivory towers?

The Madras High Court is hearing a  public interest petition seeking a CBI probe into the recent gunning down of five gangsters in Chennai who were on the run after robbing two banks at gun point. A slew of petitions have been filed to counter the original plea. Interestingly, there has been overwhelming public support for the police action. In his counter affidavit, the Chennai Police Commissioner insists that the nomenclature of an ‘encounter’ in its strict sense does not tie in with the Chennai shoot out which he claims was firing in self defence during an attempt to arrest criminals identified  by victims after a laborious gleaning of close circuit television footage. This is perhaps the first time that the police has stuck to its guns in a legal battle.

Over to the debate. For starters, the police has no business to punish anyone. Their job is to arrest law breakers and bring them to trial. Neither is it the role of activists to sit in judgment over what is a genuine case of self defence induced killing or staged murder of a suspect. The problem primarily arises when both sides exceed their brief. That the men in khakhi are known for their brutality or at least widely perceived to be so,  loads the debate against them making what may well be an honest account of what transpired, seem like a cover up.

The Indian Penal Code does not mention the word ‘encounter’. It only deals with culpable homicide and murder from Sections 299 to 304. A ‘criminal’, whatever the police files may contain, is only an accused individual, whose guilt has to be proved in court beyond the shadow of doubt. Nothing in the law gives the police a licence to kill. There are instances of mistaken identity – of innocent persons gunned down in fake encounters. Planting weapons is not all that difficult.  A disturbing fact, many fear,  is that in our criminal justice system it is perhaps easier to kill than to prosecute. The temptation to dish out street justice is dangerous. There are also apprehensions that encounters are staged in order to get medals and bravery awards. And in some cases, the ‘glory’  is cornered by a top cop for an act of a subordinate officer. The Supreme Court’s notice to this possible practice was drawn by petitions filed by activists with the suggestion of a blanket ban on decorating an officer for an encounter killing. The trick of registering an attempt to murder case against the slain persons and then closing it later citing their death has also been frowned upon. 

Last year, the Apex Court hearing a plea from Sushila Devi , the wife of an alleged don Dara Singh, who was shot dead by a Rajasthan Special crack team,  even went to the extent of  asking why  a fake encounter shouldn’t be treated  as a ‘rarest of rare’ case of murder entailing the noose for the guilty men in khakhi. The logic:  "If crimes are committed by ordinary people, ordinary punishment should be given but if the offence is committed by policemen, much harsher punishment should be given to them because they do an act totally contrary to their duties.”. Strong observations but can police officers be treated as a separate class of citizens? And would that run counter to constitutional principles? Or do we merely need to have a different yardstick for fake encounters of innocent persons with no criminal antecedents like some cases in Gujarat and the killing of  the ‘Most Wanted’ brigade where the police version of self defence cannot be brushed aside?

The  law is not lopsided. There are four exceptions to murder that could come in handy for the police. Culpable homicide is not murder in the event of grave and sudden provocation, a sudden fight, while exercising the right of private defence in good faith and in the course of the lawful exercise of power by a public servant for the advancement of public justice. In quite the same manner, obstruction of a police officer in the performance of his duty is also an offence. And when it comes to self defence, the doctrine of proportionate force is crucial. If the opposite party has a small blade or knife, shooting him is unwarranted. And there is a difference between shooting to kill and shooting to disarm. Technology today gives the law enforcers tools like tear gas and rubber bullets to disarm and immobilise criminals. Or how about the police party using button cameras to possibly record the actual incident as it happens? Why they are not usually used remains a mystery. Talking of shooting to kill, it’s important to have a basic idea of how firearms work. During arms training, a basic instruction, I gather from sources, is to take what is called ‘half a breath’ before pulling the trigger as even the slightest movement of the arm while breathing can determine whether the bullet hits the head or the thigh! 

It’s not always the police who can be accused of jumping the gun. Civil society is also often guilty of adopting double standards. Imagine a scenario when the cops locate the hideout of a dreaded criminal and in full public glare, the gangster opens fire and escapes. Or worse, takes a member of the public hostage. Even worse, kills the hostage. How would society react? There are bound to be sarcastic comments like ‘are these real men in khakhi?’ ‘Were they carrying toy pistols?’ ‘How can we feel safe if we have cowards paid to protect us?’ But when the police use bullets, they end up in the firing line of activists! Damned if they shoot, damned if they don’t? Why are police officers provided with service revolvers? Surely not as ornamental show pieces.  After the encounter killing of a van driver in Coimbatore accused of  raping and murdering two school children, I remember a parent saying on my news show ‘The Big Question’ on NDTV Hindu :  “today is my Diwali”. Is that a reflection of the delay in our criminal justice system? Or the disenchantment over what some consider ‘lenient’ bail provisions? And on the  silence of the Indian Penal Code on ‘encounters’  a court scene in a Tom Cruise classic ‘A Few Good Men’ comes to mind. The prosecutor asks a witness as to whether a military manual mentions the ‘Code Red’ (an order to deal with a delinquent trainee leading to his death), the defence attorney snatches the book and retorts :” Does it mention where the mess hall is?  It doesn’t right So you mean in your entire stint you never had a meal?!”

I also often wonder why activists conveniently forget about victims of crime and take up cudgels for perpetrators? Do victims not have human rights? Does a bank manager who has a gun pointed at his temple by dacoits not have human rights? Does a sole breadwinner of a family locked up by gun totting robbers who loot a bank not have human rights? Does a middle class father who loses all his savings in a bank meant for his daughter’s wedding not have human rights? Does a man in uniform who walks past a door in a hideout of criminals not hurling ice cream cones but firing bullets from  illegal country made weapons not have human rights? Human rights are for all.

The National Human Rights Commission’s guideline that every encounter must be investigated as a potential case of murder can be an adequate safeguard only if State police departments fall in line and intimate the Commission of every custodial death. And ‘custody’ is to be interpreted in a wider sense to include ‘control over.’  But the police is entitled to the benefit of doubt. There must be patience for the outcome of an honest enquiry. Sweeping generalisations are a national pastime. General distrust of the police is another reality. And whether a CBI probe is the only ‘independent’  and ‘neutral’ route may well hinge on political configuration! The debate can only end if these issues are addressed. Till that happens, it’s fair for the experts to say ‘Judgment Reserved.’

STATUS 'CORE'

By Sanjay Pinto

To deify or to demonise. With a keyboard or pad to hammer and a wall to spout, these are the extreme options exercised by average cricket fans. Like a weathercock; they heap encomiums when Dhoni & Co win and vent spleen when they don’t. In the good old days, there was just the Letters To The Editor columns with limited space to comment on issues. Today the social media has made users Editors in Chief of their thoughts with absolute freedom to place in the public domain, just about anything that provokes them. Facebook and twitter are a great leveler. Here everyone is an expert.  And nothing engages the nation, quite like cricket. What started as sarcastic posts like “If you want to watch India win, switch to hockey!” gradually degenerated into angry outbursts  such as “ Endowment Lectures by the Men In Blue. Dhoni on 'Fast Outfield, Slow Fielders.' Tendulkar  on 'The Mirage Called The Hundredth Hundred.' Sehwag on 'Senior-Junior, kya fayda?' Gambhir on ' Keeping Mum Helps and How'and  R. Ashwin on 'Best Practices and How to Get Away from Them On the Field.”

In a matter of five hours, the lampooning gave way to tongue in cheek posts  “For a change Kohli can show his bat proudly instead of his middle finger to the crowd” . And suddenly national pride is back! ”And the Oscar for The best surprising act goes to Virat Kohli.” Or better still, “India did a Rajinikanth against Sri Lanka.” Mercifully, on cricket you can turn to tweets by the likes of  Harsha Bhogle who reject the herd mentality that “dhoni is letting it drift? But where are the bowlers to exert pressure?”  As a wall post screams: “People who criticised Team India during the rough patch have no right to cherish their victory! 

 Now we cannot point fingers at the authors.When a game becomes a religion, the glorious uncertainties are forgotten and miracles are expected everytime. In the whole commentary, there were small regrets. “Just when Hockey was getting some limelight comes this win.”

What I find most heartening about facebook are campaigns for causes; even a means to help people in distress. Remember the  ‘Search For Thamana’ initiative in Chennai? A school girl put up the missing child’s picture and enlisted volunteers to hunt for her. How exactly she disappeared still remains a mystery. With government websites still quite outdated and many bureaucrats active on the site, this space is gradually turning into an effective grievance corner. Officials get direct messages, chat windows pop up and some are even tagged on Status updates. 

I know of IAS aspirants who browse through status updates as closely as they read newspapers, just to get different perceptions of contentious issues. One of them who has chosen public administration as an optional subject, recently told me that she finds wall posts quite like mini editorials! 

And if you’re preparing a  speech, you don’t really need to reach for the Toastmasters Almanac! Walls are replete with witty one liners and smart alec  comments. Sample this: “Men are like Bluetooth – connected to you when you are around but search for other devices when you are away. Women are like Wi Fi – see all available signals but connect to the strongest one!”