Daily Times Editorial Aug 18, 2013

Islamabad incident fallout The incident the other day of a gunman holding the heart of Islamabad hostage for about five hours has generated a great deal of controversy as its fallout, a lot of it merely sound and fury, not necessarily signifying anything. To begin with, the man in the hot seat as a result of the incident, Federal Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in a press conference in Lahore on Friday tried to defend the performance of his ministry and the police forces under its command in Islamabad in handling the delicate situation presented by the gunman, Sikandar, accompanied by his wife and two children. To the surprise and chagrin of the media people at the interaction, the minister was unable to give satisfactory answers regarding the security concerns aroused as a result of the incident. The minister did accept responsibility for prolonging the operation and restraining the police from opening fire on the gunman. As far as endangering senior policemen is concerned (including the SSP who negotiated while unarmed with Sikandar, unfortunately without success), the minister justified it by saying that was the nature of their job and responsibilities. In answer to a question why the prolonged standoff was allowed to damage Pakistan’s security image abroad, the minister gave a vague response and blamed the long live coverage by television channels for contributing to making the country look ridiculous. On Zamurad Khan’s act of courage in attempting to tackle the gunman, the minister considered it well intentioned but said he should not have interfered in the operation. Further, he said those police officers responsible for allowing him to break the security cordon and approach the gunman would be suspended. In answer to another question he dismissed the suggestion of an FIR against Zamarud khan as inappropriate. Chaudhry Nisar said he did not want to act like a ‘Sultan Rahi’ (a popular Punjabi films hero of yore) while handling the situation. The operation itself would not have taken more than 30 minutes, the minister said, but since he did not assess the gunman as a threat to anybody, he gave instructions to try and capture him alive and not attack him in front of his wife and children. He said PEMRA (the electronic media regulator) was approached to stop the live broadcast of the incident for 15-30 minutes to allow the police to conduct its operational plan, but this was not ensured. The gunman, the minister went on to explain, had two demands: freedom for his son jailed in Abu Dhabi, and to be allowed to go to the UAE embassy with his weapons. So far, so good. But then Chaudhry Nisar surprised his audience by asserting that the first demand was impossible but the second did not pose any problem! Perhaps the UAE embassy may not welcome any suggestion that it would have hosted an armed man on its premises. The minister underlined the many lessons that had been gleaned from the whole episode, such as the weaknesses of the security regime, the inability of the police to conduct operations in the dark because of the unavailability of infrared guns, stun guns and bullets, and procedures to isolate the crime scene (the public onlookers could not be kept away from the scene of the action, a possible threat to the crowd’s lives). While the incident does necessitate a review of security procedures in the capital, especially the sensitive Red Zone adjacent to the scene of the crime, the issue has raised hackles and arguments in the National Assembly, with the Opposition, particularly the PPP and PTI coming down hard on the government for its failure to act against the gunman, bringing Islamabad to a virtual standstill for hours. In the absence of Chaudhry Nisar, it was left to the backbenchers of the ruling PML-N to attempt to defend their government against the opposition onslaught. The house praised Zamurad Khan for his bravery, while dubbing the episode as “dangerous and shameful”. On the persistent demand of the opposition, the government assured the house that it would respond in detail on Monday. PPP’s Naveed Qamar came down hard on Chaudhry Nisar for his absence from the house. He described the incident not simply as a security failure but a reflection of poor decision making to act against such elements as the lone gunman. Monday promises to be an interesting session of the lower house. Meanwhile Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry ordered PEMRA to take action against the irresponsible private television channels for their extended coverage that engendered panic amongst the public. A petition has also been filed before the apex court for a judicial probe of the incident. The temptation to pillory the government is expected from the opposition. However, if ever there was a time for acting in statesmanlike fashion, this perhaps is one such moment. A responsible opposition, while taking the government to task for its perceived and actual failures in handling the ‘siege’ situation, should also reflect a little more deeply (as indeed must the government) about the state of our preparedness against such incidents and worse, actual terrorist attacks. Logically, Sikandar could have been taken out by a marksman from the police within minutes of the incident starting since he made no attempt to shield himself from view. The constraint was not the ability of the police and security forces to shoot dead a lone gunman strutting about on Jinnah Avenue in broad daylight (at least to begin with). Since the police were under instructions not to take out the gunman before the glare of the television cameras and in full view of his wife and children on the basis of perhaps a correct assessment that whatever his demands and strange behaviour, the gunman did not seem interested in hurting anyone. A coldblooded sniper assassination of Sikandar before his wife and children could have had other, even more adverse consequences, painting the country’s security forces as heartless. They were in a catch-22 situation, damned if they do, damned if they don’t. That said, the behaviour of the police once the gunman was wounded and had fallen give pause for thought. Some of the policemen who rushed to pounce on him when he fell wounded let out their frustration through their fists and kicks, others fired in the air as though this was a wedding party (such firing even at weddings is illegal of course). They certainly did not portray a force trained and disciplined in handling such delicate situations. If anything further was needed to damage the security profile of the country, the police provide the finishing touches. This has implications beyond the incident itself, since it is frightening to contemplate such a police force confronting hardened terrorists. Since the government is still mulling its security policy, perhaps the incident provides a timely reminder that the traditional police and security forces are just not trained or equipped to deal with this kind of incident or a more serious one involving a terrorist attack. Evidence for this conclusion is provided by the rash of terrorist attacks over the years and which have intensified since this government took over. Time for introspection and deep thought.