The problem with encounters

They’re an unsatisfactory way of tackling crime. It’s even worse when you suspect they’ve been carefully staged

Let me begin with an admission: I’m not sure what to make of the facts I intend to draw to your attention but I find them disturbing. But then I’m not a police officer or politician whose role is to prosecute or pin responsibility. I’m a journalist whose aim is to raise questions. If that raises doubts in your mind I’ve achieved my purpose. Because such doubts are the cause of my concern.

The UP police has revealed that since March 2017, when the Yogi Adityanath government took charge, it has engaged in 1,142 encounters resulting in 34 deaths and 265 injuries. That’s roughly three a day up to 15th of January.

NDTV has examined 14 of the 34 encounter killings. Although not a majority, there are five findings that are particularly perturbing. Taken together they make you wonder just what sort of encounters these were.

The language used in the FIRs suggests “a cut and paste” job. The ‘criminal’ is usually sighted on a bike or in a car with an accomplice. The police try but fail to stop them. The suspects open fire and the police retaliate in self-defence. The problem is when you repeatedly read this it starts to sound a little convenient.

In nine of the 14 cases the accomplice remained unidentified and untraceable. In a similar number the families of the ‘criminal’ claim he was taken from their home and, sometimes, when several witnesses were present. Most worryingly of all, the suspects are usually shot in the head or chest. Whilst in seven cases the families claim there were torture marks on the body. Finally, in only one case did a policeman get killed or seriously injured.

Let’s take the example of Jaihind Yadav to illustrate how different is the story told by the police and by the suspect’s family. Yadav was killed in an encounter on August 3 in Azamgarh. The police claim he was attempting an escape on a bike and two policemen were injured in the encounter. His father tells a very different story. “I was unwell and he took me for treatment. We were waiting for medicine when some people picked him up. I don’t know who they were. Later some people said they were from the Special Task Force.”

When questioned in the Assembly Yogi Adityanath seemed unconcerned by such issues. “Mujrimon ke prati sahanbhuti… loktantra ke liye khataranak hai (sympathy for criminals is dangerous for a democracy)”. Whilst it’s commendable for any Chief Minister to take a tough stand against alleged criminals the police are also required to work within the confines of the law. If they transgress what is legally permissible they become criminals themselves.

This point was made by the Leader of the Opposition, Ram Govind Chaudhary: “Apradhi ko koi pasand nahi karega … par kanoon ke dwara kanoon ka rajya hona chahiye (nobody likes criminals but the rule of law can only be established through legal ways).” The Yogi’s response is that encounters will continue!

This raises two questions that lie at the heart of law enforcement in any democracy. Is proper procedure being followed or is the police indulging in unacceptable shortcuts? If it’s the latter are innocent people being killed in the pursuit of alleged criminals?

The problem with encounters is they always raise such questions. This is why they’re an unsatisfactory way of tackling crime. It’s even worse when you suspect they’ve been carefully staged.

The Yogi, no doubt, wants to present himself as a no-nonsense tough leader who can tackle criminals. It’s an appealing image. But it could be a high-handed approach to governance and also the thin edge of the wedge. No matter how dreaded the accused, in a free state this is no way to dispose of him. If today we accept a government that disregards his rights, tomorrow it could adopt a similarly cavalier attitude to our own.

Even at the risk of being accused of supporting ‘criminals’ I don’t like the way they’re being pursued. And the UP government’s refusal to remove doubt is even more unsettling. So now do you see why I’m disturbed? Yet this is one instance where I’d rather be wrong than right.