Let’s be honest, few of us admire the police. The majority, who confront them at the ground level, believe they can be bribed — in fact, that’s what they’re looking for — and they are rarely wrong. The few, who are in authority over them, know they can be used for political or, even, nefarious purposes — once again, they are usually right. With some exceptions — sadly, far too few — our policemen do not exercise the rectitude that won London’s Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley widespread praise when he refused to accept instructions from the former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, to ban rallies in support of the Palestine cause. Instead, our police officers anticipate their masters’ wishes and seek to fulfil them even before they’re expressed.
However, the Jammu and Kashmir police response to a relatively minor recent incident seems to exceed the worst of what we thought possible. Seven students of the Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology were arrested and charged with terrorism under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly celebrating Australia’s World Cup cricket win, raising pro-Pakistan slogans and threatening other students who disagree with them. The student who complained to the police said these seven “started abusing me and targeting me for being a supporter of our country”. He also claimed they raised pro-Pakistan slogans “which created fear amongst the students from outside the UT of J&K”.
Even if all that is correct — and, as yet, we only have the complaint’s word for it — does it by any stretch of the imagination amount to terrorism? If the seven did thus behave, it would, no doubt, be undesirable, reprehensible and deserving of admonition. But does it call for police action?
I got up to a lot of nonsense when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge and some of it was probably close to unforgivable. But that’s what students do. Even when a group of us was caught speeding and clearly tipsy, all the policeman, who flagged down our car, said to the driver was: “Careful sir, you don’t want to spoil a good evening with an accident”. With that, he turned around and left. We drove on slowly and very carefully.
How different are the cops in Jammu and Kashmir? When Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah protested against their high-handed decision to arrest the seven students under UAPA, they released a formal statement justifying their action. Frankly, it raises questions not just about their judgement but also their understanding of simple words in the English language.
“It is not merely about raising pro-Pakistan slogans”, the statement says. “It is about the full context in which the sloganeering took place. These slogans, as has usually been the case with a select few bullies, were aired to intimidate those who disagreed and also to identify and vilify those who choose to keep a distance.”
Are those really grounds for accusing students of terrorism? Surely, you can be a bully without being a terrorist? And is “to intimidate” the equivalent of terror? Parents often intimidate their children to enforce discipline or teach manners. Bosses frequently intimidate their subordinates. Colloquially speaking, you could say he “fills me with terror” or he is “a terror”, but that’s not terrorism. Certainly not what the police should recognise as such.
However, the police statement goes further. “It is also about normalising an abnormal: That everyone hates India (as different from the government of the day and party in power) ‘openly’.” Once again, hating your country may be considered unpatriotic and even, for some, reprehensible, but there are many who do. People who have suffered horrible injustice or deep-seated prejudice could hate their country and who’s to say they’re wrong? The simple point is hating your country is not a crime. It’s certainly not terrorism.
Astonishingly, the police statement goes yet further. “It is not about dissent or freedom of expression. It is about terrorising others who may be nourishing pro-India feelings or anti-Pakistan feelings or disagreeing. There were written complaints to evidence this.” This bit of the statement is utterly bizarre. Frankly, I’m not sure what it’s referring to other than, possibly, the claim that one of the seven threatened to shoot the complainant. But, if true, that’s an attempt to murder. Not terrorism. Surely, the police know the difference between the two?
Now, tell me, what do you make of the elaborate justification provided by the J&K police? Does it prove they were right to arrest seven students for terrorism because they applauded an Australian victory or threatened to shoot someone, which was probably just hot-headed emotion and the folly of youth? Or does it incriminate the police themselves and raise questions about their judgement, their understanding of the law and their ability to discreetly and effectively handle tricky situations involving young students? Finally, do you think the police did this because the seven are Kashmiri and Muslim?
I don’t have to tell you my answers. You’ve probably guessed them. If you have, you’re right.
The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi
