One and a half cheers for Rab

Their main target -- almost the only target -- are the self-styled "left" political parties, for the most part robber bands pure and simple or miscellaneous urban terrorists who had made people's lives a nightmare. They seem to be still (touch wood) basically non-partisan. So, three cheers for the Rab then?

That might be a bit premature. In fact, right now I can't summon up more than one and a half. For these people are being killed without trial. There seems little doubt that the victims of Rab are indeed hardened criminals who live by murder and rapine -- but, to judge by newspaper and TV reports, this has not been proved in a court of law, the death sentence -- the ultimate the state can mete out to the individual -- has been passed and executed without benefit of judge and jury. The due process of law is being subverted, the most fundamental and precious human right of all, the right to life, is being violated.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This is persuasive, but not conclusive. It is argued, with reason, that the ordinary citizen in village and town, and aspiring entrepreneurs who produce the wealth of the nation, also have a right to the undisturbed possession of their life, liberty, and the pursuit of their occupation. It is alleged the normal institutions of law enforcement are incapable of handling the problem because they are inefficient, under-manned, over-burdened, and corrupt, court proceedings thrive on faked evidence and false testimony, and are easily manipulated by people with financial or political power.

To let known criminals roam free from a nice regard for their right to life and liberty and the due process of law is the height of quixotry. It is one among many examples at an uncritical application of a Western ethical code to a society and economy at a very different stage of development. Surely all these safeguards against arbitrary state power will make it impossible to maintain law and order and jeopardize our development, and, as pointed out above, deny the rights of ordinary citizens to a quiet and secure life.

It would seem, therefore, that there are persuasive arguments on both sides. A principled ambivalence, acknowledging the inherent messiness of social and political reality and refusing to take sides, may be the only intellectually honest stand. But that is not very helpful in selecting policies. A skeptic, as Bertrand Rusell said, must still act on the assumption that the consequence of the action is known with certainty and can be evaluated without (too much) disagreement.

It is undeniable that one of the most fundamental objectives of state policy, indeed, arguably the raison d'etre for the state, is the maintenance of law and order, the right of every citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, when crime has become so endemic that it seriously compromises this right, crime prevention takes priority and your right to open trial in a court of law loses ground to my right to security of life and livelihood. Some human rights must be (partially and temporarily suspended, in the interest at the long-term sustainability of equally or more important rights. This would seem to provide an acceptable moral foundation for the Rab.

Could one restrain Rab (or other such special forces) without curbing its efficacy? This is the fundamental dilemma that confronts rulers the world over. In more general terms, how does one apply the state's coercive authority effectively, and yet ensure that the agents do not abuse their power? Or that under the protection of the moral case made our above the real agenda is not more sinister?

There are no simple solution -- perhaps there are no solutions at all. At any rate, solutions are not to be found in the cloud-cuckoo-land of perfect social harmony based on the brotherhood of man or the sisterhood of woman. Nor is it to be sought in the advent of Superman (or Superwoman). It is to be found -- or rather, a partial, very imperfect approximation to it may be found in plodding, patient, painful and potentially dangerous social engineering, accepting and accommodating trade-offs, making inevitably contentious judgments about the rates at which two freedoms can be substituted for one another. In this process, something very like the Rab may be an inevitable accessory.

What is troubling about this particular operation is the extent to which transparency and accountability are being sacrificed in the interests of law and order. It is quite likely that the people who are being thus eliminated richly deserve their fact. The point is that the operating procedures leave a wide latitude for the Rab to pursue an agenda different from the one declared. The Rab combines the roles of judge, jury and executioner -- a breach of the most fundamental principle of democratic practice, the separation of powers.

So we return to the question, can the Rab be made more transparent and accountable without losing its efficacy?

The key point here is the execution without due process. The "accused" is in fact never formally accused (let alone having his rights read to him) in a court of law, never tried (therefore denied the right to defend himself), never sentenced. What is really going on? There are two possibilities, one is that the deaths are indeed, the inevitable "collateral damage" attendant upon a gunfight in the dark. The forces of law and order must have the right to shoot in self-defense, otherwise they are operating under an impossible handicap. And if this is the claim, as it seems to be, then it would be pretty near impossible to prove otherwise, in a court of law. But the quite remarkable similarity of the episodes, specially the rural ones must give one pause -- a cadre of a "revolutionary party" is wounded and captured, the Rab team takes him to guide them to their hideout or anyway to other gang members, there is a fire-fight during which the informer, and possibly one or two more revolutionaries, are killed "in a cross-fire." One or two Rab members may sustain minor injuries.

And yet, it is difficult to see what motive the Rab by itself could have to cold-bloodedly shoot down perfect strangers, who moreover can shoot back. And, as I said earlier, as far as we can tell, there is no significant political bias in the choice of target -- with the major exception of an apparent blind spot for Islamic, militants, and even that seems to have been corrected, or so my Daily Star of February 23 informs me.

I conclude with some suggestions on how to improve Rab's transparency and accountability without doing real damage to their rapid-response-qualities. I propose that the Rab (or any similar body) be explicitly mandated to "bring then back alive" and perhaps be offered a bonus for doing so. The detainees can be held under the Special Powers Act, (or a revised version) and tried before a special anti terrorist Tribunal if normal courts are overloaded.

Secondly, the constitution of bodies like the Rab may be made subject to parliamentary approval and subsequent oversight. This is on the assumption that Parliament actually works, which is unfortunately seldom the case in Bangladesh.

Thirdly, the government could try offering amnesties to at least some of the leftist groups. I imagine many of them would like nothing better than to come in from the cold.

Fourthly, journalists may be invited to accompany Rab units on their missions in an "embedded" capacity, they should naturally be warned not to get caught in a cross-fire.

The above may seem to be a recipe for introducing delays in the working of the system, specially given the state of the legal system. Of course nothing can replace a strong and independent judicial process. The Rab must not be seen as a handy substitute for one. One may liken them rather to temporary diversions on the highway to democracy, bumpy and dark and dangerous, but the only means of continuing on our journey while the breaches in the highway are being repaired.

Abu Abdullah is an eminent economist.