Atiq And Encounters: Did UP Do Anything Different From What A Barack Obama Would?

The liberal-left-Islamist meltdown over the killing of mafia don Atiq Ahmed and his brother by three assailants earlier this week, and some of the earlier “encounter” deaths of criminal elements in Uttar Pradesh, can be dismissed out of hand for its selectivity.

What, however, cannot be ducked is this question: when does the state have the right to put away an individual by crossing the line between what is legally permissible and what is not?

In the dharmic universe, the answer is simple: whenever the fight is between dharma and adharma, dharma needs to win. So, yes, it is right to cross the line in the interests of protecting the broader interests of the public, especially when not doing so can cause huge damage to the idea of justice.

However, since we also live in a constitutional universe, there has to be a point where the needs of dharma must be compatible with the law.

One can, of course, change the law, as we do frequently to tackle terrorists or social evils like caste-based discrimination, but in extreme criminal cases we have no legal way of dealing with those who are actually a threat to law and order, and where the law ends up protecting criminals rather than the public.

In Atiq Ahmed’s case, the time to operate within the law to bring him to justice probably ended a long time ago. A man who can, even when in jail, get a key witness killed (Umesh Pal), when he can get someone kidnapped and brought to him to sign some property papers, and whose bail case can make seven judges recuse themselves, is someone who can act above the law, and even threaten it covertly. If the law cannot deliver justice, how wrong is it to act against him in another way?

Now consider what the US government does when it decides that foreign citizens (a.k.a. “terrorists”), or even its own citizens who fit the same description, in a similar situation to Atiq.

First, the US government at the highest level designates someone as a threat and puts him on the “kill list”. (Read a Reuters report of 2011 on the process here). It says, “American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

"There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.”

Third, the president may be informed of its decision later. At best, if he is informed earlier, he can countermand the assassination. But, as the Reuters report seems to suggest, he has plausible deniability in case anything later comes to light that shows him as sanctioning assassination.

What the report actually says is this: “The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a US citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.”

The truth is under Obama, the CIA, which is supposed to be a spy agency abroad, was converted into a special purpose assassination vehicle, as this Washington Post article suggests.

There is nothing more than a fig-leaf of authority for the US executive to sanction the extra-judicial killings of those deemed to be a threat to the country or its citizens.

If we were to apply this principle to encounters in Uttar Pradesh and other states (let us be clear, this is not only a UP phenomenon), the only difference would be that Atiq and his gang were deemed to be public threat by an elected government inside India, and the authorisation to deal with him and his ilk in encounters is shrouded in mystery — just as the US decisions are.

The way out is simple: for dealing with people whom the law cannot touch for various reasons, a quasi-legal panel should be set up by all states, which could include a former judge. This panel can look at the evidence and sanction proceeding with extreme prejudice against the criminal involved.

What UP probably does not have (but we don’t know this for sure) is the fig-leaf of legality that protects a George Bush, a Barack Obama, Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

Time we gave our states that fig-leaf and freedom to deal with criminals who can subvert the law — but with reasonable limits being set on what can or cannot be done.

The police cannot be given a carte blanche to do whatever they please. But citizens and the state cannot be left as cannon fodder for criminal elements who can ignore the law and do what they please.