The October 27 serial blasts in Patna have once again turned the spotlight on the sorry state of affairs in which law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies function, not just in Bihar but also across the country
Terrorism is a virus that is spreading across India. When under attack, most State Governments behave like cornered pigeons that close their eyes hoping that the cat will not see them. The other problem is that the fight against terrorism is mixed with politics, especially, when elections are around the corner. Bihar is one State where terrorists have struck twice this year in a big way. The first was when they attacked the Bodh Gaya temple in July to supposedly avenge attacks on Muslims in Myanmar. Then, there were serial blasts in Patna, ahead of BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi’s election rally, on October 27.
The attack, which killed six persons and injured over 83 others, was reportedly perpetrated by the Indian Mujahideen. It was supposedly in retaliation to the communal riots in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. But, as usual, the Bihar Government was indulgent of the terrorists — it refused to take action against the group’s dreaded chief Yasin Bhatkal on the ground that it had no case against him. Probably, the ruling party did this to present itself as the defender of the minority community, rather than that of the State.
Bihar Police works under the State Government and is not an independent body, despite the recent intervention of the Supreme Court. On September 22, the apex court ordered limited police reforms, like fixing the tenure of certain police personnel. Incidentally, no State, including Bihar, has implemented this.
There is hardly any State that the terrorists have not struck. In any case, protecting citizens or dealing with terrorism does not seem to be a priority of the Governments in either Uttar Pradesh or Bihar. According to an information that was presented in the lok Sabha, “India has a police-population ratio (number of police personnel per one lakh persons) of 134 as compared to the United Nations’ norm of a minimum of 220. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have the worst ratios of 63 and 74 respectively”. As per UN norms, the strength of Bihar Police is just 25 per cent, as against the national average of 50 per cent.
Data compiled by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in December 2012 shows that the actual strength of the police force in the country, as of December 2011, was 16.60 lakh against the sanctioned strength of 20.86 lakh. In Bihar, the 55,000-strong police force lacks access to modern weaponry like anti-landmine vehicles, bullet-proof vests and bomb disposal equipment.
According to the Bihar Police Association, a majority of the State’s 300 police stations along with 92 police pickets and hundreds of police outposts are located in Maoist-affected districts. All of them have been facing severe infrastructure shortages.
After the Patna blasts, the Union Minister for Home Affairs said that Bihar’s intelligence agencies had been informed about the possibility of a terror strike during Mr Modi’s rally. The State Government denies this. Assuming that Patna is saying the truth, the question still remains as to what its own intelligence agencies were doing. But without the necessary manpower in position, how do you expect the police force to keep a tight vigilIJ
According to the latest figures released by the Bureau of Police Research and Development, under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as of January 1, 2012, 14,842 VIPs in the country enjoy state protection and draw more security than what they are entitled to. With 3,030 police protectees, Bihar tops the list. Out of the total 55,000 policemen in Bihar, about 10,000 or roughly 20 per cent are deployed on VIP duty. Still, the list of the usual VIPs — Ministers, judges, MlAs, MlCs — may not cross the figure of 1,500.
So, who are the other VIPs in BiharIJ They are senior party workers, powerful contractors and businessmen who are usually close to the ruling power, says a senior police officer. According to a report released by former Union Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram, manpower for ‘protected persons’ protection duty is drawn from available resources — generally without a corresponding increase in the total sanctioned strength of the police force. This has strained the already limited resources of State police forces.
There are a few standard excuses politicians offer after every law and order crisis or terror attack. First, the incident was a conspiracy; second, that it was false; and third, that it was designed to malign the Government in power. But nobody talks about the competence of the official machinery in dealing with such situations.
The Bihar Government, despite being aware of its crumbling police structure, has done little to improve the situation so that security personnel can deliver public goods. This is because there is no direct correlation between better policing and more votes.
The biggest problem in dealing with terrorism in this country is the multiplicity of power centres. There has to be one Commander-in-Chief for fighting terrorism. Some States have anti-terrorism squads while others have special forces that function under the Director General of Police, who takes orders from the State Chief Minister and other political leaders.
Politicians are more concerned about their vote banks than eradicating terrorism — especially since they worry about losing the support of terror sympathisers. Also, when the situation goes out of hand, State Governments often requisition central paramilitary forces, only to treat them shabbily or not to use them at all.
In Kashmir, the State Government has ordered that the paramilitary forces carry only lathis and no lethal weapons, thus rendering the security personnel not only vulnerable but also ineffective. There is also no uniform policy in the States for dealing with terrorists — except to give cash and a Government job to the victim’s next-of-kin, as if that brings the issue to a close.
Nowhere in the world has terrorism been overcome with words, be they in the form of appeals or brave statements. Yet, this is the only weapon our leaders use. It is true that law and order is a State subject, but the defence of the country (be it from an internal or external threat), is a Central subject, on which there should be no compromise.
Unfortunately, we, as a country, are being governed by politicians and not statesmen and leaders. Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once said: “The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.”