The 'crossfire' debate

Many say that one of the measures to test the status of the law and order situation is to judge the fact whether a woman is able to walk in the evening from one end of the city to the other, without fear or harassment or rude comments.

There has been a cry from people that some decisive actions need to be undertaken by the government to eliminate criminal gangs or muggers or extortionists, moving about in the city to launch frequent attacks on ordinary people. Some say the government saw that its popularity was going down unless law and order is restored. The government, accordingly, decided to deploy Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) to deal appropriately with the situation.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

RAB has pursued a "zero tolerance" method to restore normalcy as was done by police in the New York mega-city under former Mayor Rudy Guiliani. Regrettably, in the course of RAB's actions, there have been deaths of many alleged criminals in circumstances what they have described as "crossfire". Many of these hardened criminals reportedly were wanted in criminal cases and could not be brought within the ambit of law.

Two opposing views
It has been reported that crossfire deaths occur when personnel of RAB are under attack with fire arms, they retaliate as a self-defence. The deaths of alleged

criminals in crossfire have raised a debate in many sections in the community. Such debate also took place in earlier military operation of "Clean Heart" in 2003 by the government.

It seems that there are two views in the community on this matter. While one group is greatly relieved to see some normalcy is being restored at any cost, the other group is deeply concerned about the controversial circumstances of deaths of alleged criminals in "crossfire".

The first group perceives that the deterioration of law and order situation demands drastic action from the government. Furthermore there should be some publicly visible action on the part of RAB so that other criminal gangs realise that their days of "free for all" are over. If in that process, a few alleged criminals die in crossfire, there is nothing much one can do and they readily acknowledge that given the situation, there would be some collateral damage. They arguably compare the situation to that of a legitimate war of self-defence in which deaths among civilians cannot be totally avoided. The doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number of people is invoked as a defence of RAB's actions.

They argue that the government has been placed in a dilemma. If they do take action, they are criticised and if they don't, they are equally subject to criticism for inaction. The government thinks that enough is enough and has found it fit and appropriate to deploy RAB to restore law and order in the country.

They further argue that protection of human rights of citizens are not absolute and are subject to social conditions and other related issues in a society or in a country. Human rights beget obligations. It is not a one-way street. The alleged criminal gangs must realise that they are not able to invoke human rights alone. The human rights of their victims should be respected and protected. In this context, it is noted that many government leaders have reportedly defended the actions of RAB to restore normalcy and sought cooperation from people.

The second group perceives that under no circumstances, a democratic government can deploy a special law-enforcing agency (RAB) to kill its citizens under suspicious circumstances what they call "crossfire". They argue that criminals are, after all, the citizens of the country and they have the fundamental right to life and this right can only be taken away under law. That implies that the criminal gangs should be brought to justice before the court under the laws. The established procedure and judiciary are in place in the country. Whatever their charges, the alleged criminal gangs should be put on trial before the court of law. They further argue that the deaths in crossfire are tantamount to "extra-judicial killings", contrary to the provisions of the Bangladesh Constitution of 1972.

They contend that there were instances where such type of killing was perpetrated in a few Latin American countries in the 70s under military rule. One of them was Chile under military dictator General Augosto Pinochet who ruled the country from 1973 to 1990. Recent reports indicate that the relatives of the victims have pursued legal course of action to put Pinochet on trial and the case is pending at the highest court of the land. In other words, General Pinochet cannot avoid his accountability for such deaths in the country as "the buck stops at the table of Pinochet". (It should be noted, however, that the Chilean situation took place under an extra-constitutional government).

As regards the deaths of alleged criminals in crossfire, many have raised another dimension of the situation. They argue the following:

First, crossfire deaths have occurred in many parts of the country. It implies that there is an existence of unauthorised armed groups in the country who are in a position to challenge the law-enforcing agencies. In other words, one can come to a reasonable view that the authorities would recognise and declare publicly such situation. In fact, no such recognition has been publicly declared.

Second, crossfire deaths are unusual and once they occur, it is reasonable to assume that a review of the procedure would be taken by the authorities concerned so that such incidents may not recur in future. Repeated instances of crossfire deaths negate the impact of any such review of the procedure employed by RAB.

Third, it is reported that some deaths occur during shootout by accomplices of alleged criminals while captured suspects are led to recover illegal firearms by RAB. A question arises as to how the accomplices are aware of the exact time when the suspects are led by RAB to a certain place of illegal arms?

Fourth, it seems that all reported deaths are caused on alleged criminals. The near absence of casualty of personnel of law-enforcing agencies raises suspicion on circumstances in which crossfire deaths have occurred.

Finally, there is a doubt that inability of the alleged dead criminals to be brought to justice may indicate that many of them might disclose some disagreeable information in the court and their deaths would avoid such disclosures in the open.

Conclusion
The above paragraphs indicate that RAB's actions of crossfire deaths have elicited two opposing views in the community. It is reported that certain human rights groups have challenged the legality of RAB's operation in the court of law and until the court's verdict is given, the debate is likely to continue.

Many believe that the government has taken a calculated political risk to deploy RAB to restore law and order. In democracy, the people are the ultimate judge to say whether the government has adopted the right course of action or not in restoring law and order, causing deaths of alleged criminals in RAB action. The general election will be held in 2006 and the result of the election will indicate the final verdict for or against the government.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.