Recently, there was a news report regarding the denial of bail to police officers (anti terrorist squad) in the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin. A few months ago, the verdict in the Kandahar hijack case was delivered — a trial that was conducted without the main accused. The depressing thread that connects these stories reflects poorly on the government’s effort to counter terrorism.

An effective counter terrorism policy requires at the very least a law, a crack team of police and perhaps a competent judiciary. For reasons best known to the government we don’t have a law, effective or otherwise. The constitutionality of POTA was upheld; the law passed the keen test of fundamental rights, yet it was repealed.

The argument for reform of the police forces has been gaining momentum for a while now, the issue reaching even the Supreme Court. The need for a centralised counter-insurgency agency has been raised but nothing has come of it. State governments or politicians meanwhile have successfully resisted police reforms and have also shown reluctance for a unified or federal agency because police and public order are state subjects. As terrorists find better and more innovative ways to wreak havoc, we equip our police officers with sticks and stones. The exposé by The Indian Express would lead one to believe that that our security forces are combating poachers or leopards and not Naxals. Yet the police must respect the fundamental rights of those accused of terrorism. Obviously under these circumstances there is going to be some ‘collateral damage’.

... contd.