Case for a law on arson
In absence of special law with appropriate teeth, we will continue to witness violent crimes on smallest of triggers.
The writer is a public policy analyst and has served as interior secretary and as home secretary of Punjab
The mayhem in Rawalpindi that caused extensive damage to public property and loss of lives on Ashura has raised some critical questions about the systemic failure we are heading for. While suicide attacks were averted, the peaceful passage of a procession near a mosque could not be ensured. The prime minister did not mince words reprimanding the local police unequivocally over their lacklustre show.
It was not a question of capacity and wherewithal of the local police; instead, it was an issue of the will and grit to measure up to the challenge at hand that the district police was confronted with. In view of the propensity of our rulers to compromise with religious zealots, the law enforcement agencies have also started following a similar mode of action.
The Rawalpindi fiasco also exposed a serious void in terms of a crime-specific legal framework in the case of acts of arson, which are now rampant on the streets of our cities. In this regard, Karachi has been the worst sufferer for the past many years with rowdy crowds torching banks, petrol pumps, stores and vehicles. We have yet to come across arsonists having been handed down justice despite CCTV footage catching their profiles.
Lahore and other areas of Punjab are not lagging behind either. Earlier this year, a gang of arsonists torched a Christian colony at Badami Bagh, Lahore. This unfortunate incident took place despite prior information and under the full gaze of the law enforcement agencies. Some years ago, in Lahore, on the occasion of violent protests against blasphemous publications in Denmark, property was set on fire by mobsters while the law enforcement agencies’ response to this was lukewarm at best. Rawalpindi was, therefore, a repeat performance of the outburst of latent rage nurtured by our clerics and a laidback response by our law enforcers. It is interesting to note that our law enforcement agencies are most strident in taking on political protests, while they have a habit to look the other way when it comes to violence ignited by clerics.
This only alludes to the mindset nurtured and conditioned by our political leadership. Over time, there has been an oblique yet very clear message from the political leadership to the rank and file of the law enforcement agencies to placate and appease religious zealots and clerics, and not to resort to the use of force against them even if the situation demands it. Protests triggered by religious sentiments are condoned even if they result in destruction of public property and acts of arson are tolerated with remarkable smugness, while at the same time, lawyers protesting on the Constitution Avenue in Islamabad are baton-charged.
Muharram 10 has historically always been a heavy day in the calendar of the district administration. In the good old days, the collective wisdom of the district magistrate and the superintendent of police, with an eye on the minutest details, would see the day through. The clash of timings between the mourners’ procession and prayers at nearby mosques of a different sect on the route always provided for nerve-wracking moments. Officers would work out details with the various stakeholders, implement their plans to the dot and would leave nothing to chance. There was always a plan ‘B’ to meet any eventuality if something still went wrong. The district and divisional officers stayed at their respective headquarters and were available for guidance and advice, and if the situation warranted, they would take over the lead role from their subordinates.
The dismantling of the executive magistracy by General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and the abolition of the office of the district magistrate took away the civilian face of the law and order machinery. The police and magistracy were like a two-wheel drive but with one cavalier stroke of the general, the whole system was henceforth reduced to a drive on a one-wheeler, the local police having been left to its own devices.
The Rawalpindi tragedy, to begin with, unfolded with the use of the loudspeaker by the imam of the mosque, which was banned for the day except for the khutba. The question arises as to why the officer on duty did not stop this breach of law and confiscate the weapon of offence — the public address system. It was the same syndrome of appeasement that blurred the thinking of the officers. This eventually led to the scenes of violence and arson that also caused tragic loss of life.
This brings us to the key area of legislation to address the growing menace of arson, a highly dangerous form of urban violence, which denies an innocent not only of his hearth and home but also his livelihood. There is a dire need for a special law in this regard to tackle the ever-evolving criminal behaviour that is throwing up new challenges for the state and society. Chapter XVII of the Pakistan Penal Code lists offences against property and consequent punishment on indictment. Theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity and various categories of criminal trespass figure prominently here. This Act, however, has not kept pace with the changing ground realities. As a result, we often find acts of arson being parked under some other offence, which not only weakens investigation but misses out elements at the prosecution stage.
Under the law of the land, every person is entitled to defend his property and to take measures so that no unauthorised person may degrade or destroy the same. Under the common law and in other dispensations as well, this responsibility rests with the state, which has the lawful authority to guarantee security to the life and property of a citizen. In Britain, this right is stipulated in the Criminal Damage Control Act of 1971.
While dilating on the subject, the mode of damage caused to the property is of key significance. The offence of arson in advanced societies is stipulated separately and that underpins the gravity of the offence, adding sensitivity to the investigation and the prosecution process. The offence is alarmingly prevalent in multicultural societies, especially in racially aggravated situations, while in our case, it often takes a sectarian or religious turn.
The provincial governments should move speedily to frame a comprehensive law in this regard. The proposed law should not only prescribe rigorous imprisonment for the perpetrators but through backward and forward linkages, rope in abettors and accomplices. It should make provision for the use of force to quell arsonists. This statutory cover, giving powers to the use of force, will bring out the law enforcement agencies from their laidback state. All over the world, non-lethal projectiles are being used to deal with offenders, who are committing such crimes.
In the absence of a special law with appropriate teeth, we will continue to witness the recurrence of violent crimes on the smallest of triggers.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 3rd, 2013.
It was not a question of capacity and wherewithal of the local police; instead, it was an issue of the will and grit to measure up to the challenge at hand that the district police was confronted with. In view of the propensity of our rulers to compromise with religious zealots, the law enforcement agencies have also started following a similar mode of action.
The Rawalpindi fiasco also exposed a serious void in terms of a crime-specific legal framework in the case of acts of arson, which are now rampant on the streets of our cities. In this regard, Karachi has been the worst sufferer for the past many years with rowdy crowds torching banks, petrol pumps, stores and vehicles. We have yet to come across arsonists having been handed down justice despite CCTV footage catching their profiles.
Lahore and other areas of Punjab are not lagging behind either. Earlier this year, a gang of arsonists torched a Christian colony at Badami Bagh, Lahore. This unfortunate incident took place despite prior information and under the full gaze of the law enforcement agencies. Some years ago, in Lahore, on the occasion of violent protests against blasphemous publications in Denmark, property was set on fire by mobsters while the law enforcement agencies’ response to this was lukewarm at best. Rawalpindi was, therefore, a repeat performance of the outburst of latent rage nurtured by our clerics and a laidback response by our law enforcers. It is interesting to note that our law enforcement agencies are most strident in taking on political protests, while they have a habit to look the other way when it comes to violence ignited by clerics.
This only alludes to the mindset nurtured and conditioned by our political leadership. Over time, there has been an oblique yet very clear message from the political leadership to the rank and file of the law enforcement agencies to placate and appease religious zealots and clerics, and not to resort to the use of force against them even if the situation demands it. Protests triggered by religious sentiments are condoned even if they result in destruction of public property and acts of arson are tolerated with remarkable smugness, while at the same time, lawyers protesting on the Constitution Avenue in Islamabad are baton-charged.
Muharram 10 has historically always been a heavy day in the calendar of the district administration. In the good old days, the collective wisdom of the district magistrate and the superintendent of police, with an eye on the minutest details, would see the day through. The clash of timings between the mourners’ procession and prayers at nearby mosques of a different sect on the route always provided for nerve-wracking moments. Officers would work out details with the various stakeholders, implement their plans to the dot and would leave nothing to chance. There was always a plan ‘B’ to meet any eventuality if something still went wrong. The district and divisional officers stayed at their respective headquarters and were available for guidance and advice, and if the situation warranted, they would take over the lead role from their subordinates.
The dismantling of the executive magistracy by General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and the abolition of the office of the district magistrate took away the civilian face of the law and order machinery. The police and magistracy were like a two-wheel drive but with one cavalier stroke of the general, the whole system was henceforth reduced to a drive on a one-wheeler, the local police having been left to its own devices.
The Rawalpindi tragedy, to begin with, unfolded with the use of the loudspeaker by the imam of the mosque, which was banned for the day except for the khutba. The question arises as to why the officer on duty did not stop this breach of law and confiscate the weapon of offence — the public address system. It was the same syndrome of appeasement that blurred the thinking of the officers. This eventually led to the scenes of violence and arson that also caused tragic loss of life.
This brings us to the key area of legislation to address the growing menace of arson, a highly dangerous form of urban violence, which denies an innocent not only of his hearth and home but also his livelihood. There is a dire need for a special law in this regard to tackle the ever-evolving criminal behaviour that is throwing up new challenges for the state and society. Chapter XVII of the Pakistan Penal Code lists offences against property and consequent punishment on indictment. Theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity and various categories of criminal trespass figure prominently here. This Act, however, has not kept pace with the changing ground realities. As a result, we often find acts of arson being parked under some other offence, which not only weakens investigation but misses out elements at the prosecution stage.
Under the law of the land, every person is entitled to defend his property and to take measures so that no unauthorised person may degrade or destroy the same. Under the common law and in other dispensations as well, this responsibility rests with the state, which has the lawful authority to guarantee security to the life and property of a citizen. In Britain, this right is stipulated in the Criminal Damage Control Act of 1971.
While dilating on the subject, the mode of damage caused to the property is of key significance. The offence of arson in advanced societies is stipulated separately and that underpins the gravity of the offence, adding sensitivity to the investigation and the prosecution process. The offence is alarmingly prevalent in multicultural societies, especially in racially aggravated situations, while in our case, it often takes a sectarian or religious turn.
The provincial governments should move speedily to frame a comprehensive law in this regard. The proposed law should not only prescribe rigorous imprisonment for the perpetrators but through backward and forward linkages, rope in abettors and accomplices. It should make provision for the use of force to quell arsonists. This statutory cover, giving powers to the use of force, will bring out the law enforcement agencies from their laidback state. All over the world, non-lethal projectiles are being used to deal with offenders, who are committing such crimes.
In the absence of a special law with appropriate teeth, we will continue to witness the recurrence of violent crimes on the smallest of triggers.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 3rd, 2013.