Why do left-liberal enclaves in Delhi mourn Sohrabuddin, while the rest of India is glad his criminal hand has been stayed? There is clearly a growing restiveness on national security issues

In the immediacy of acrid debate, political slander and breathless television anchors, it is easy to lose sight of the big picture. This is precisely what has happened with the "encounter deaths" of Gujarat. So caught up is everybody with scoring rhetorical points, crucial, basic questions have gone answered.

There are, really, three compelling issues that emerge from the drama of the past week. First, just who was this Sohrabuddin Shaikh and why are we being subjected to intimate photographs of him every evening on television? Second, are "police encounters", in Gujarat or elsewhere, necessary, evil or merely a necessary evil? Third, what impact, if any, will this have on the political fortunes of everybody's favourite bogeyman, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi?

To answer the first question, a bit of context is called for. In the late 1980s, well before Indian public discourse came to be dominated by me-too-Oprah Winfreys, Abdul Latif was the underworld king of Gujarat. Based in Ahmedabad, politically well networked, he made a fortune in the bootlegging industry.

Later, he became Dawood Ibrahim's business manager in the State and was one of the criminal dons to make what now seems to be the seamless transition from organised crime to terrorism. Latif was a suspect in the Mumbai blasts case of 1993; the RDX and other explosive devices for that operation landed, remember, on the Gujarat coast.

In November 1997, Latif was killed in an encounter with the Ahmedabad police. He was under arrest and had allegedly tried to escape while using the toilet. A Congress-backed Rashtriya Janata Party (RJP) Government was then running Gujarat. The Chief Minister was Mr Dilip Parikh but the power behind the throne was the RJP president, Mr Shankarsinh Vaghela. Today, of course, Mr Vaghela is a Congress MP and Union Minister for Textiles.

Whatever he may say now, 10 years ago, Mr Vaghela's supporters saw the elimination of Latif as an "achievement" and a sample of their leader's courage and resolve. The importance of Latif's departure from the State terror matrix was important enough for that redoubtable magazine, Frontline, to recall it in its April 29-May 12, 2000, issue.

"Shortly after massive blasts occurred in New Delhi's Lajpat Nagar market on May 21, 1996," the article in Frontline said, "RAW made available intercepts that led the Srinagar Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Jammu & Kashmir Police to Jammu & Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) operative Farida Wani. Soon after, her boss, Hilal Baig, was shot dead by the SOG on July 17, 1996. Telephone intercepts also led the Gujarat police to one of the JKIF's top associates, Ahmedabad underworld baron and Dawood Ibrahim associate Abdul Rashid Latif. Latif was arrested from New Delhi by a Gujarat Police Anti-Terrorist Squad on October 10, 1996, and was killed later while attempting to escape from custody in Ahmedabad."

Many of Latif's cohorts were put under watch. One of them was his driver, apparently responsible for, in one daring move, hiding a huge cache of weapons meant for terrorist groups. This was part of the consignment that had arrived before the Mumbai blasts of 1993. Latif was under surveillance so his driver had hidden the arms in a well in his (the driver's) native village near Ujjain.

The driver eventually faced over 50 cases, including some under the National Security Act. He was arrested, at various stages, by the Gujarat and the Madhya Pradesh police, but avoided conviction. When not facilitating terror networks, he was engaged in extortion rackets in Rajasthan, acting almost certainly on behalf of others. His principals, the police believe, may be linked to terror-funding groups.

The name of Latif's driver was Sohrabuddin Shaikh. In most countries, there would have been relief at his death - though a legal sentence would have been preferred. In India he has become the tragic hero of a news television soap opera.

Move to issue two: The larger 'philosophy', if that is the word, behind police encounters. From the Naxalite insurgency in 1970s West Bengal to the quelling of terrorism in Punjab two decades later to, in the late 1990s, the crippling of criminal gangs in Mumbai, precedents have been cited. Since precedent is not always justification, contemporary imperatives could also be considered.

For a start, as a political worker in Gujarat put it the other day, "Before abolishing encounters, the courts need to abolish the conditions that give rise to encounters." In short, a justice system marked by delay, adjournments and insufficient witness and evidence protection can never be effective enough when taking on big crime, let alone global terrorism.

In large measure, the popular mood in favour of encounters was driven by the shame of Kandahar, when three terrorists had to be released to win freedom for the hijacked passengers of flight IC-814, on the final day of 1999. Since then, the public has come to sanctify a "take no prisoners" approach, one that reduces opportunities for future hostage crises.

Why couldn't India stand up to the Taliban-jihadi blackmail in December 1999? A hysterical media, showing exaggerated pictures of relatives of hostages and even of Delhi Congress workers pretending to be relatives, painted the NDA Government as heartless and put enormous pressure on it. The other side of the story was not told, irrational emotionalism was built up; the Government lost its nerve.

Today, the same channels feature talk shows asking why police encounters take place. It some ways, there is a logical link between the feckless reportage during the Kandahar horror and the killing of Sohrabuddin. Revulsion for one has led to approbation for the other.

Third, what is the political upshot of the Gujarat encounter story? If the Opposition and the national media - and in the case of Mr Modi, they are interchangeable - had focussed on just the murder of Kausar Bi, the State Government would have been on the backfoot. She may or may not have been a gangster's moll and a collection agent, she may have dumped her husband - she left him after he lost his job - and three children in Ujjain for the fast life with a desperado, but Kausar Bi was no terrorist.

In going for the overkill and converting this into a larger criticism of the Gujarat Police and political leadership, and savaging the fight against terrorism in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir, Mr Modi's rivals have done him a huge favour. It is not for nothing that there is a steady stream of visitors outside DIG DG Vanjara's house, offering his wife support and sympathy. In Sabarkantha district, this rough-and-ready OBC police officer is a folk hero; already people are saying he will sweep an election if he resigns from service and contests as an Independent.

This may be an inconvenient truth in Left-liberal enclaves in Delhi. In the rest of India, it captures a growing restiveness.

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, May 8, 2007