Keeping peace alive

Maninder Singh  

WE, as part of an official delegation, were in downtown Melbourne on the day when a person of Somali origin stabbed to death the owner of an Italian eatery on the busy Bourke Street. The attacker was shot dead by the police. Later this week, a man called James Gargasoulas, of Greek origin, was found guilty of murdering six persons on the same street in January 2017 by mowing them down with his car. In the court, he claimed he was not guilty and claimed to be a saviour.

“Oft in the stilly night”, one wonders at the frail, misplaced and miscalculations of these attackers. If the aim was to disrupt life in Victoria’s capital city, these acts of violence failed to subdue the citizens or the tourists savouring spring in the  metropolis. 

Only the government of a state, and this is one of the attributes of a sovereign entity, has the legal monopoly over the right to use force for legitimate purposes. There was passing criticism over the decision of the police to shoot down the Bourke Street attacker, instead of incapacitating him, which might have made it possible for the unravelling of the full picture behind this act of terrorism.

What could have been the best course of action may be easy to say, in cold judgment, after an incident. When an attack like this happens, it is the men on the spot whose oft-wavering judgment in the heat of the moment might have to be eventually trusted.

I remember well the only time, thankfully, that I had the occasion to order a posse of men to open fire. Working as SDM in a troublesome area in the aftermath of the demolition of a far-away disputed structure, I was struck by how misguided people could use the incident as a pretext for unleashing violence.

To maintain peace, a curfew was imposed. Never having had the unhappy occasion of inflicting curfew before, I wondered fleetingly about what provision of the law enabled a ban on the movement of people in public spaces. In a trace of quick reminiscence, one recalled the CrPC Section 144. Under the sweeping powers that the section gifts to the law enforcers, any prohibition that is necessary to maintain public peace can be enforced.  The enforcement of an order imposing curfew is a killing affair. The failure to enforce such an order can lead to the breakdown of law and order.

On the cold December evening, the diktat was issued for the first time ever in that sub-division, I embarked on a field visit to the main town of my jurisdiction to judge how the curbs imposed by the curfew were unfolding. Imagine my surprise when I saw a flaming redness on the horizon. It was not a redness brought about by a setting sun. Having quickly commandeered a Jeep with six men belonging to the paramilitary, I arrived at the scene of the conflagration. A mob was setting fire to the house of a lawyer, belonging to another community. I lined up those strapping men, asking them if they were afraid to fire. They said they had no compunctions of fear and were duty-bound to obey orders.

An announcement having been made and the mob not having dispersed, two rounds were fired. Those men were such good marksmen that the blazing rounds  failed to hit man or beast. With the discharge of another two flaming rounds, an arsonist was hit in the leg. No sooner had the solitary bullet struck, that the mob scattered like a swarm of terrified flies, taking with them the limping victim.

That firing helped maintain the peace in the city and I was thankful that time and destiny did not impose upon me the agonising necessity to line up men in that fashion ever again.