An ill-balanced report

The BKU inquiry report fails to acknowledge the failure of security forces and the law-enforcement agencies

The inquiry committee into the attack on Bacha Khan University (BKU) has submitted a report. It will be recalled that on January 20 terrorists stormed the university and killed at least 21 people, mostly students. The three-member committee has decided to apportion blame, and has accused the vice-chancellor and the university’s security chief of negligence and has recommended that they be relieved of their posts. The report further states that the police had warned the university that its security was below par and says that the person in charge of security had no relevant training or experience. It lists a range of deficits that collectively add up to, at the very least, poor performance by those it accuses.

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 2^nd, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.