Something to Think About - 03

Police, Police - The Same Everywhere.

"Haneef terrorism charges dropped", says a BBC News report of Friday, the 27th July 2007. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6918569.stm) It goes on to say, "An Indian doctor has been freed from custody in Australia after charges linked to the failed bomb attacks in the UK were dropped ............ The charge was withdrawn on Friday after Australia's chief prosecutor admitted "a mistake has been made". ......... The case against Dr Haneef came under question after prosecution evidence presented in a previous hearing was disputed. Prosecutors had claimed that the doctor's SIM card had been found in the burning car that crashed into Glasgow international airport on 30 June. But it later emerged the card had actually been found in a flat in Liverpool, some 300km (185 miles) from Glasgow, where his cousin lived."

The Indian Police establishment must be enjoying this piece of news thoroughly. After all they are often at the receiving end of stinging criticism, not only at the hands of Western 'holier-than-thou' commentators, but also of western-oriented, and probably western-funded, English language media in India, about their incompetence and ham-handed handling of cases. This, in spite of many highly publicised success stories like: the conviction of British operator, Peter Bleach, for gun-running; the investigations in the match fixing scandal involving Hansie Cronje and others which shocked the cricketing world; the successful, though highly delayed, convictions of the perpetrators of the 1993 Mumbai blasts; and so on.

On the flip side there are occasions when the police and other investigative and enforcement agencies have exhibited unethical, unprofessional, illegal, inhumane behaviour. The notorious Bhagalpur Blindings incident in which the police blinded 31 undertrial/convicted prisoners by throwing acid in their faces is just one such example. But it would appear that most such incidents are due to the frustration the police personnel experience because of frequent political intervention in their activities. It is a very common experience in India that when the police arrest some goondas (thugs, antisocial elements), their prosecution is obstructed by political bosses whose patronage the goondas enjoy. When, over a period of time, the policemen who do their job conscientiously and professionally, and justifiably expect appreciation for their good work, get the stick instead for daring to lay their hands on some blue-eyed boys of the ruling party, it is no wonder they reach a condition called 'temporary insanity' and behave like a bull in a China shop.

Very often the enforcement agencies also gear up their behaviour to be in tune with what they think their masters expect of them, and would approve of. If the American soldiers exhibited some unacceptable behaviour in the Abu Ghraib episode in Iraq, it is mainly because of the environment, the mindset created by the ruling junta in the United States of America. Unfortunately the rulers, the politicians, who are the real perpetrators of these misdeeds, get away scot-free and it is only the small fry who are left to face the music.

That seems to be the case in this Dr. Haneef episode too. Another report by Nick Bryant of BBC News the same day, "Why the Haneef case disintegrated", says: "Clive Porritt, the prosecuting lawyer, delivered his most compelling nugget of evidence: that the mobile phone SIM card which Dr Haneef was alleged to have given to his second cousin in Britain was found in the burning Jeep rammed into Glasgow airport. ...... The case against Dr Haneef disintegrated because that proved to be false information. The SIM card was discovered not in Glasgow but in Liverpool. ............ There were other problems and inconsistencies. The police claimed he offered no explanation of why he tried to leave Brisbane on a one-way ticket to India. A transcript of his first police interview, leaked to the press by his defence team, showed he did: he wanted to see his wife, who had just given birth to their child." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6919399.stm)

Police certainly go overboard in submitting false information, and suppressing/manufacturing evidence which will help them get a conviction on terrorism charges. That will surely bring them into the good books of Howard and Bush and Cheney and Blair in the present environment of 'war against terror'. But when the case blows up in their face, whose face gets blackened?

Here is how John Howard, Australia's Prime Minister has reacted to the situation. In his report Nick Bryant says: "On a visit to Bali, where Australians have twice been the victims of attacks, Mr Howard sought to distance himself from the debacle at home."

Quoting Howard he says: "Bearing in mind that the detention of the man was undertaken by the police and not at the request or direction or encouragement of the government, and that the case was prepared by the director of [public] prosecutions, I think that the right thing now is for those two men to explain the process and explain the reasons."

Of course Howard and his Australian government had nothing to do with this case! What hypocrisy!! But how come Kevin Andrews, the immigration minister, decided to cancel Haneef's visa and keep him detained under immigration laws in the first place? That too "when the magistrate at that hearing in Brisbane, Jacqui Payne, had decided to grant the 27-year-old Indian doctor conditional bail". Obviously the left hand of Howard's government does not know what the right hand is doing.

The BBC report goes on to say: "That immediately gave the case a political edge, with critics of the government claiming Dr Haneef had been caught up in the turbulent undertow of an election year. ...... With the John Howard government lagging way behind in the polls, as it has done for the past six months, Mr Andrews was accused of political opportunism: of trying to burnish the government's anti-terror credentials and focusing attention on national security, an issue which polls repeatedly show favours Mr Howard."

Anything goes in the name of election. And anything goes in the name of anti-terrorism too. When Bush and Cheney and their Neocon gang can cause the death of close to one million Iraqi civilians and label it as collateral damage, when they can declare that the Geneva Convention is null and void as far as USA is concerned, when they can defy the world in carrying on with their unlawful detention centres in Guantanamo Bay and other unspecified locations elsewhere, what matters this little bit of aberration on the part of Howard? After all hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Something for us all to think about, about the calibre of the people we elect.