THE Daily Star editorial of July 2 on extra-judicial killings makes horrendous reading because it says that such killings in the first half of the current year stands at a staggering 63. The pattern of such deaths also seems to be consistently extensive. There is understandable concern at the sliding human rights scenario as law enforcers appear to be law breakers.

The compounding tragedy, according to media reports, is that while grisly murders are remaining unsolved, the public entertain serious doubts about the netting of actual criminals. The suspicion is that dangerous criminals are roaming around with impunity or are being shielded. The sense of insecurity among the weak and the vulnerable, calls for effective attention of the custodians of law.

It would appear that as a polity we are finding it difficult to get out of the extra-judicial mode that has set in since quite sometime. While there is realisation that extra-judicial deaths are a slap on the rule of law and are condemnable yet the efforts to put things on the right track have been distressingly slow. It is, therefore, once again necessary to go into the causes of the aberration and deliberate on the remedial measures.

Corrective actions to stall and deter patently illegal acts like deaths in authority's custody or the extra-judicial killing have come late, one

has to admit. The belated actions, caused principally by the outcry in the media and vehement protests of the civil society, while not being a matter of comfort to concerned citizens, should prompt us to venture into the state of mind and circumstances that have contributed to the building of a lamentable extra-judicial mindset.

The question as to why lawmen resort to short-cut and extra-legal

methods in their statutory functions should, at the least, be a subject of intellectual curiosity. Is it ambiguous legislation, vulnerability to legal sanctions, occupational culture and pressure to produce quick results? Does the malfunctioning of the criminal justice system push people to expect, nay demand, of the police to take laws in their own hands, especially when dealing with the dreaded terrorists and hard-core criminals?

It is not uncommon to hear in our situation demands for ruthless counter measures irrespective of the price that has to be paid in terms of human rights. Thus, abuses of authority in such situations can flourish not only due to official negligence or acquiescence but because, rightly or wrongly, broad sections of people consider that in spite of their excesses the police are carrying out an important and unpleasant task for the preservation

of society and state. The question is, have our enforcement leaders and their political controllers made visible efforts to halt this kind of drift?

There are also occasions when situations of grave emergency create a scenario wherein demands of order override those of liberty. Some say that the safety of the people is the highest law and, as such, in grave situations, special emergency mea-

sures have to be adopted curtailing rights of the people. The issue is whether our political leaders realise that even in times of emergency there are certain non-derogable rights to life and liberty, freedom from torture, etc.

One has to ask if in Bangladesh lawless police officers are in demand when lawlessness and disorder prevail in any area. Are believers in the rule of law and followers of straight legal methods considered to be "cows" and "sissies" and are not adjudged fit enough to deal with explosive situations because a police officer working within the limits of rule of law needs to put in sustained efforts to achieve durable results?

Experience shows that a lawful police officer succeeds in displaying substantial results in the long-run but most people are interested in shortterm, spectacular results even though

they may be illusory. In fact, our expectations, compatible with the rule of law, of the police are at total variance with our actual expectations compatible with the rule of order. This double standard makes one believe that police's chief value lies in efficient enforcement of the prohibitive norms of substantive criminal law.

The issue of police modernisation becomes relevant when we witness our lawmen indulging in third degree methods. Don't we appreciate that the so-called efficient and traditional police force will not do and that, like the defence services, it should be equipped with modern equipment and staffed with desirable people? How long shall we put up with an outfit that appears largely to by-pass the constructive impulses of science and technology?

It needs to be impressed once again that the practice of breaking the law in the name of law enforcement is totally unacceptable and intolerable and has no place in a democratic society governed by the rule of law. It is objectionable because it is arbitrary as a process and random in its effects. A democratic polity venturing to maintain order by repression and criminality is actually creating ultimate disorder because in so doing it creates a link between social order and atrocities.

Law enforcement is a field of activity in which interaction between the world of the powerful and the world of the powerless are manifested. Hence, we have to ensure that law enforcement emphasises principles of purpose and principles of values. We must come out of the degrading thought that those who cannot be taken care of within the ambit of law have to be dealt beyond the law.

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.