Debate I Gill a Hero, but Nothing Justifies Violating Rule of Law

Problem with the Gill doctrine is that it runs the risk of alienating people in the name of curbing social tension.

(Is the Gill doctrine, a set of rigorous measures adopted by police personnel to curb unrest, justified as an ‘extraordinary’ response to an extraordinary situation? This is the Counterview. You may read the View by Prakash Singh here.)

Former Punjab DGP KPS Gill’s demise last week brought to the fore extrajudicial means police personnel resort to when tackling crime in various forms. Punjab’s ‘supercop’ is credited with crushing the Khalistani movement and unleashing police to curb violence spurred by the demand for a separate homeland, which was backed by neighbouring Pakistan.

Also Read: KPS Gill: From Assam’s Plains to Punjab, The Cop Who Listened

Damaging Impact

The Gill doctrine, synonymous with harsh measures adopted by the men in khaki, seems to be inspired by Clausewitz’s theory of war, according to which “war is a mere continuation of policy by other means”. The bone of contention is whether using extreme means against one’s own brethren is justified in the name of trying to control the situation and preventing further loss of lives and property, thereby ensuring peace.

The consequent impact on the functioning of police, in the wake of such ‘extraordinary’ response, has been damaging. Not only was the Punjab Police’s image tarnished, a large number of cases of human rights abuses caused a shattering of public trust in a key institution of democracy. Basant Rath, a senior IPS officer, has criticised KPS Gill’s actions, calling his initiatives taken in the 80s a “disaster”.

Also Read: Goodbye KPS Gill, You Will Be Remembered

Gill, as a police leader working under the checks and balances of India’s constitutional democracy, was a disaster. In matters of policing and security, Gill didn’t have much time and energy for institutions and processes. He had no concern for the consequences his decisions brought down upon the very police officers who followed his orders blindly. People like him are great crisis managers and brilliant executioners, but they are a threat to democratic institutions and their legitimacy.

Basant Rath, Senior IPS Officer, writing in The Wire

Legitimacy of Harsh Measures

There’s no doubt that Gill played a major role in helping the State in its counter-terrorist efforts. As illustrated in a 2007 research paper by Prem Mahadevan, Gill’s expertise lay in revamping the intelligence network to keep a tab on terrorists.

Bounties were placed upon the heads of particularly notorious terrorists. To aid in the process of prioritisation, terrorists were classed into ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ categories on the basis of their commitment. Hardcore or category ‘A’ terrorists were generally extremely violent and were targeted for special attention. Whenever less ruthless category ‘B’ or ‘C’ terrorists were captured by police, they were usually required to co-operate in neutralising their more fanatical comrades if they wanted to be let off.

2007 Research Paper titled, ‘The Gill Doctrine: A Model for 21st Century Counter-Terrorism?’ (Source: SATP)

However, at a time when the Chief of Army justifies use of human shield, calling it a ‘proxy war’, one wonders at the legitimacy of such defensive measures being imposed on the citizens. As Rath puts it rightly, no explanation is acceptable that defies the rule of law.

India’s police leadership has a huge task at hand. Armed insurgent groups are fighting the legitimacy of the Indian State in 172 districts in the form of insurgency, left-wing extremism and terrorism. From Bastar to Baramulla, from Imphal to Nalgonda, from Gadchiroli to Purulia, India’s tryst with democracy is being challenged by gun-wielding groups that claim no allegiance to her Constitution. The rule of law can’t be given a royal go-by in the name of fighting these insurgents in the national interest.

Basant Rath, Senior IPS Officer, The Wire

At the Cost of Alienating People

Certainly, the scale of killings during the anti-terror operations in Punjab after 1984 was huge – around 6,000, as revealed by activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who tracked the killings through crematoria records – and calls for introspection by the State.

As Meenakshi Ganguly, Director (South Asia), Human Rights Watch, wrote in an article in The New York Times in 2013, “Police should not be allowed to be the executioner and the judge” and the policemen who take the law in their hands should be probed on charges of premeditated murder. The 1996 Bhojpur fake encounter, following which a CBI court sentenced four police officers to life imprisonment in February this year, is a case in point.

Be it 1,528 alleged fake encounters in Manipur, the Ishrat Jahan case or thousands of unmarked graves in Kashmir, the incidents reflect a growing public mistrust of law enforcers. And therein lies the peril of the so-called Gill doctrine which can potentially alienate the people.

Also Read: Here’s What KPS Gill Wrote to PM About Police Excesses in Punjab