DEATHS in the so-called crossfire have, unfortunately, become news once again. The Daily Star editorial of May 31, has been quite critical of the foreign minister's comment that the culture of crossfire killing cannot come to an end overnight. While concerned citizens and rights bodies may take serious exception to the minister's observation, particularly in view of her recent assurances about putting an effective stop to custodial killing at international forum, the reality on ground lends credence to the minister's premonition, howsoever retrograde that may sound.

The important question is, how the law enforcement culture, at least partially, has learnt to live with such aberration? To many, the crossfire incidents are in fact extra judicial murders that have been authoritatively encouraged. There is good reason to agree with such a view as the so-called crossfire continued unabated during the democratic dispensation of 2001 2006.

During the caretaker interval there were comparatively lesser deaths in crossfire. The return of democracy since early 2009 has not been able to put an effective stop to the suspected extra-judicial killing in the garb of crossfire.

Under circumstances as above, should citizens believe that lawless enforcement officials are in great demand when law-lessness and disorder prevail? Alternatively, are believers in the rule of law and followers of the straight legal methods not required and have to recede into background? Don't we need to put sustained efforts to achieve substantial results in the long run? Won't we be able to shake off the obsession with the so-called spectacular results that in fact are illusory?

It is high time that we start realising the pernicious effects of the use of dirty methods by law-enforcement officials. When such functionaries are allowed to go beyond the law, they make the law dirty If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law. It has to be borne in mind that for democratic responsible government law is the means and justice is the end.

It is not for the ordinary or gullible members of the public to take a deep look at extra legal killings because their concern is one of immediate relief from the depredations of the local bully or the entrenched tormentor. However, a civilized government cannot be a prisoner of such damaging retrograde thoughts. A very significant aspect, which demands serious attention is that the so-called terrorists killed in the crossfire were in fact politically patronized and blessed. As a result, there is no guarantee that such killings will produce any result.

If as a civilized nation we expect our regulatory institutions including the police to regularly brush up their professional skills then we cannot be a party to willy-nilly facilitate the creation of a scenario wherein one would be willing to believe that those perpetrators of crime who cannot be brought under the law have to be dealt beyond the law.

Needless to mention here that in such an assumption lies the suicidal admission that the criminal justice administration of a democratic polity has failed to act and the state has forsaken one of its primary functions. Since no right-thinking Bangladeshi would reconcile to such a scenario that smacks of a failed government they have a duty to find out why some organs of the state have to resort to apparent vigilante action. The nation needs to know if law-enforcement personnel are deliberately deviating from the statutory directives in anti-crime operations.

Eulogizing or praising the 'crossfire actions' has created a worrying environment wherein result-oriented investigating officers are increasingly getting inclined to resort to short-cut methods to

please official boss or the political masters. The worrisome part is the threat to put an alleged criminal or an ordinary suspect under the so-called 'crossfire scenario' in order to gratify ulterior motives.

Since most crossfire deaths are not seriously perused for establishing the suspected culpability, the culprits in the enforcement and investigative apparatus discover a macabre win win situation in such patently illegal acts. Elements of accountability and fear recede into background and investigation by the book becomes a pathetically low priority.

Professionally speaking, this is an instance of heightened jeopardy because in Bangladesh the crime fighting machinery already stands accused of not cultivating a scientific modus-operandi and quite often relapsing into the untenable third-degree methods.

I he question is, do we want sustained laborious action under the law to strengthen our democratic foundation or do we need rash desperate action without the cover of law? The crossfire actions, undoubtedly, do not fit in with the first proposition. We need to be absolutely clear about that.

The ultimate punishment in the alleged 'crossfire' about whose credibility many are not convinced, appear as summary response from desperate executives of law enforcement. The legality of actions leading to such extreme action apart, any responsible citizen might like to know if in our often over-zealous anti-crime operations, we are just treating the symptoms without venturing to study and assess the objective conditions promoting criminal-ity

We do not need sociologists and criminologists to tell us that present-day crime is a complex social phenomenon caused by a multiplicity of factors and determining culpability is an extremely mindexacting task.

Everyday life experience tells us that quite often the fun-seeking delinquent of yesteryears turn into uncontrollable don of the day due to the patronage of powerful quarters and the unexplained inaction of the enforcement outfit Therefore, when deaths occur in the so-called 'crossfire' some myopic elements may be satisfied but a civilized society, which wishes to live by the cannons of law cannot but be concerned. The alleged deaths in 'crossfire' are forestalling the benefits of thorough investigation wherefrom the citizens could have known the pathetic as yet compelling factors behind the growth and maturing of criminals, the shady role of the patrons and the alleged inertia of the regulatory units.

What we need is adequate provision of witness protection and victim support in the criminal justice administration. To make those effective we need large injection of governmental funds. Any further delay will only swell the ranks of summary-justice seekers and the admirers of vigilante action. The decapitating adversity of the victims of crime demand mainstream support of the system.

The rule of law and criminal jurisprudence may appear to be unequivocally in favour of the offenders, the criminals, the law-breakers, the accused persons. That does not automatically give a license to resort to illegal measures because a civilized government must earnestly strive to demonstrate that law-enforcement effectiveness and civil liberties can co-exist in a society governed by the rule of law.

MuharrrnadMurulH«te is a columnist for The Daly Star "