Encounter: Criminals have no caste, no religion
Two contrasting images about Bahraich came in view on Thursday. In one, two accused Mohammed Talim and Sarfaraz were clearly seen firing bullets at Ramgopal Mishra, the youth who was killed. The other image was of both these youths, Talim and Sarfaraz, limping with a bullet each in their foot, being carried by UP police.
The surprising part is that there are people who are extending support to the killers who are clearly seen in the video firing shots at Ramgopal Mishra, while in the other image the two killers are admitting on camera that policemen fired bullets at their feet while they were trying to flee.
Yet, political leaders are alleging that this was a “fake encounter” stage managed by UP police. These leaders are alleging that police committed an illegal act by firing at these two youths. Their allegation is that Yogi Adityanath’s government is working on “thoko” (shoot) policy and this policy is being applied only against Muslims.
This is incorrect. If you look at facts and figures, it will be wrong to allege that only Muslims are victims of encounters. Those who died in police encounters during Yogi’s regime are Muslims, Brahmins, Thakurs, Yadavs and other backward castes.
Police does not fire by asking names of criminals, or by looking at their religion. What happened in Bahraich was unfortunate. The manner in which homes and shops were set on fire after Ramgopal Mishra’s murder was also unfortunate.
Let us look at how our politicians reacted. Soon after news came about the encounter, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said, the state administration was staging fake encounter to hide its failure in preventing violence in Bahraich. His party’s MP Afzal Ansari, brother of crime don late Mukhtar Ansari, said, ‘bantogey, toh katogey’ was not a slogan, but a codeword and the consequences are there for all to see.
UP Congress chief Ajay Rai said, fake encounters are being carried out to strike terror in the minds of people. Congress MP Imran Masood demanded why action is being taken only against one community, and not again those who set fire to homes and shops.
Ajmer Sharif Dargah’s khadim Sarwar Chishti described Sarfaraz and Talim as innocent and said when Ramgopal Mishra was tearing off an Islamic flag to hoist a saffron Hindu flag, should people throw flowers at him? At least Sarwar Chishti did not say whether police should have thrown flower petals at the killers who killed Mishra.
It is surprising that some politicians are not expressing even sympathy for Ramgopal Mishra, who was killed in cold blood. When violence takes place during a religious procession, politicians raise questions about law and order. When police takes time in catching culprits, politicians raise questions about the efficiency of police. If police takes strong action against rioters, the same politicians level allegations of injustrice. And when police fire bullets at the feet of killers during encounter, they call such encounters as fake. One can realize the politicial compulsions of such parties.
The five suspects of Bahraich violence who were caught by UP police on Thursday morning were trying to cross over to Nepal. To raise questions about whether the encounter was geuine or fake, is not justified. I think, we should allow the police and courts to perform their duty.
Encounters: Are They Caste Based ?
Two encounters, one in UP and the other in Maharashtra, have hit the news headlines, with political parties taking potshots at one another. Anuj Pratap Singh, an accused in the Sultanpur jewellery heist, carrying Rs 1 lakh reward on his head, was killed by UP Special Task Force, while in Maharashtra, Akshay Shinde, an accused in the sexual assault of school kids, was killed inside a police van while being ferried from Taloja jail to Badlapur.
UP encounter
First, the encounter in Unnao, UP. Anuj Pratap Singh was the second accused in the jewellery heist to be killed in an encounter. Earlier, his fellow suspect Mangesh Yadav was gunned down by STF. Of the 14 suspects, two robbers have been killed, nine are in jail and three others absconding. When Mangesh Yadav was killed, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav alleged that UP police was targeting a particular caste. The accused Anuj Pratap Singh, killed in Monday, was a Thakur, and Akhilesh’s party alleged that Chief Minister Yogi’s government was now trying “to create a balance between castes”. Akhilesh Yadav tweeted saying “fake encounter of anyone is nothing but injustice”. The debate on fake or real encounters has been going on since long, with the question being raised whether killing of criminals in encounter is justified. Akhilesh Yadav has added a caste angle to this debate. He has been asking, why only Yadavs or Muslims are being killed in encounters in UP, and why criminals belonging to other castes do not get hit by bullets? His question may be a valid one, but the remark of Anuj Pratap Singh’s father after his son’s death on Monday was – “Now Akhilesh Yadav’s heart will get relief”. This remark is loaded with meanings. I believe, criminals have no caste or religion. No caste or religion teaches anybody to kill, loot, extort or maim. But when the issue of caste was raised about encounters, I asked my reporters to find out statistics about those killed in encounters since Yogi Adityanath took over as Chief Minister in March, 2017. The facts are revealing. In the last seven years, 207 criminals were gunned down in encounters in UP. Of them, 67 were Muslims, 20 Brahmins, 18 Thakurs, 17 Jats and Gurjars, 16 Yadavs, 14 Dalits, three tribals, two Sikhs, 8 belonged to OBC castes and 42 belonged to other castes. To say that the UP police targets criminals in encounters on the basis of caste, is therefore, incorrect. But in politics, such facts are never touched. Politicians of most parties indulge in mudslinging in the name of caste and religion. This issue is going to crop up again, and again.
Maharashtra encounter
The man, Akshay Shinde, killed inside a police van while being taken from jail to Badlapur, used to work as a sweeper in a school. He allegedly assaulted two nursery students sexually. According to police, he snatched the revolver of a policeman inside the van, and fired three rounds, before he was shot. He was rushed to hospital, where he was declared dead, while the injured policeman is still in hospital. On hearing the death of Shinde, local residents in Badlapur distributed sweets, while opposition leaders questioned the circumstances in which he was shot. NCP chief Sharad Pawar demanded a high-level probe, while state Congress chief Nana Patole demanded a judicial probe. Maharahstra deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis said, the accused was killed by police in self-defence. Fadnavis reminded that it was the opposition which was demanding public hanging of Akshay Shinde when news about sexual assault of nursery kids broke out, and now they have changed their tune. Encounter is not new to Mumbai Police. There was a time when ‘encounter specialists’ used to work in Mumbai Police, but their operations were limited to mafia gangsters. The Badlapur case is quite different. Akshay Shinde was facing serious allegations under POCSO act for sexually assaulting nursery kids and there was anger against him in public. There were several other cases against him. Prima facie the police statement that Akshay snatched the revolver and shot rounds, seems to be true. However, more facts will emerge only after a thorough probe. Since assembly elections are due in Maharashtra soon, political parties are bound to make it an issue. The same political parties who were demanding death by hanging for Akshay Shinde, are now questioning the intentions of the government. Their statements are purely political in nature. One will continue to hear similar remarks from both sides. But at least, nobody will allege that Akshay Shinde was killed because of his caste. Because both the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and the accused who was killed have Shinde as their surnames.