What the report does not mention is any blame, in whatever portion, that might lie at the door of the security forces and the law-enforcement agencies themselves whose job it is to protect institutions such as BKU. Given that the university is geographically in an area that might be termed ‘high risk’ and given that well-known terrorist organisations had made regular threats against schools and universities, it was for those agencies to provide enhanced protection to vulnerable sites. There can be no reasonable expectation that any educational institution can raise, arm and train its own paramilitary defence force. It is not for teachers to carry guns as is now being discussed widely, which in itself points to a broad systemic breakdown in the provision of security by state agencies and a significant loss of public confidence in them.
The report may be correct to level criticism, but it is only half of the security picture — and failure — that led to the loss of so many young lives. The questions around the issue of intelligence failure and failure to proactively respond to a raised threat level to BKU are not addressed, and they should be. It is not for law-enforcement agencies to be reactive only; they are mandated, indeed required, to intervene in protection of the wider populace if they have good cause. At BKU it appears they did not, and that portion of blame lies at their door.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2016.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ