Naqeeb Mehsud’s killing in a staged encounter led by Karachi’s known ‘encounter specialist’ Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Rao Anwar has caused a public backlash which took the media by storm in the past ten days or so. In a bid to appear to be responding to the situation, the Sindh government has suspended the SSP and formed an inquiry committee comprising police officers. The Supreme Court, apparently taking cue from the media trends, has initiated suo moto proceedings and decided to hold court in Karachi later this week while directing the federal government to put Anwar’s name on the Exit Control List. This is quite extraordinary and is perhaps happening for the first time in the history of Pakistan.
To state that extrajudicial killings of ‘suspects’ are illegal and unconstitutional would be stating the obvious. Real police encounters do also happen in which the police also suffer losses but data shows that most encounters are staged. Killings in fake police encounters are not a new phenomenon. According to the data gathered shared by HRCP in its annual reports, the figures for police encounters over the last two decades are given in the table.
According to another official report, 402 alleged suspects were killed or involved in encounters between 2008 and 2016 with the police in just one district of Malir in Karachi. Most of the cases have been reported from Sohrab Goth, a Pashtun majority neighbourhood where Naqeeb Mehsud lived. Another media report in the past few days suggests that the departmental inquiry committee is collecting details about the killings of 250 people in 60 police encounters carried out in the last three years under the supervision of suspended SSP Malir Rao Anwar.
If the high number of staged encounters were happening in recent years as a routine matter, why did then such a public reaction come at this particular occasion and not sooner? Is the current reaction, both of public and the state authorities, against extra-judicial killings of all kinds or is it only against extra-judicial killings of perceived or real ‘innocent’ individuals alone? In the latter case, is it because extra-judicial killings were and are understood to be a necessary part of the so-called ‘war on terror’ and to curb criminality in general? What are the dynamics of the current episode of public and institutional reaction? Is it likely to be consequential? Will it lead to a vociferous demand for transparent and constitutionally compliant policing? These are some of the questions we must try to answer in order to get a sense of what’s going on.
Anwar has been in the police service for thirty years or so and is reported to have risen to the current rank from assistant sub-inspector, an extraordinary feat in the Pakistani context. Was his specialist skill the main reason for his rise and rise in the police hierarchy? He is not the only officer known for such ‘special skills’ because figures tell us that he could not be. In 2013, the Sindh police with the help of the Rangers and intelligence agencies, unleashed a campaign against armed gangs and suspected militants in Karachi. Murders were reported to go down to 202 in 2015 compared with 2,507 in 2013. According to the same report by Reuters, half a dozen serving and former police officials said such extra-judicial killings were being used as a ‘policing technique and a way to release the burden on courts’. While writing a report on extra-judicial killings some years ago, I interviewed police officers who held identical views on extra-judicial killings and torture, both considered to be essential part of policing. The research showed that provincial governments considered extra-judicial killings necessary for the successful running of state affairs and good image of the government.
Could the apex court which keeps a track of news on human rights conditions to fulfill its constitutional obligations miss out on the developments in Karachi between 2013-17? Is it possible that the IG Sindh Police and the Sindh Government were unaware of SSP Anwar’s conduct? Were the members of public now engaged in condemning Mehsud’s killing unaware of regular reports appearing in the media about extra-judicial killings? The answer to all these questions can only be one.
What has happened in Mehsud’s case is rare. He had a social media profile which was popular among the Pashtun youth who upon receiving news of his killing as a TTP terrorist at the hands of the police immediately reacted angrily. Since they could identify as an innocent citizen therefore support for his cause came unhindered. This luxury is not available to suspects who cannot be identified as innocent. Killing of a known innocent like Mehsud is morally abhorrent; extra-judicial killing of a lesser known or an unknown suspect terrorist has not yet become morally unacceptable for us. This is what made Naqeeb Mehsud’s cause a popular cause.
The reaction from state authorities including the court and the provincial government as well as from within the provincial police department is knee jerk, at best. There’s no appetite to ask difficult questions. Torture and extrajudicial killings are acceptable so long as they target the suspected terrorists and criminals; the ‘other’ in the war on terror and criminality. It is strange that state and society would imagine that innocent individuals won’t become target of fake encounters when the suspects can ‘legitimately’ be killed by ‘encounter specialists’. It is this mindset which promotes criminality in the rank and file of the law enforcement agencies. Till such time it remains acceptable, Naqeeb Mehsuds will keep dying unnatural deaths.
To state that extrajudicial killings of ‘suspects’ are illegal and unconstitutional would be stating the obvious. Real police encounters do also happen in which the police also suffer losses but data shows that most encounters are staged. Killings in fake police encounters are not a new phenomenon. According to the data gathered shared by HRCP in its annual reports, the figures for police encounters over the last two decades are given in the table.
Police Encounters (1997 - 2016)
No of encounters: 11,540
No of suspects killed: 8,798
Ave suspects killed/year (approx): 440
Highest encounter killings in a year: 2,015
No of police killed: 558
Police to Suspects killed ratio: 1 to 16
According to another official report, 402 alleged suspects were killed or involved in encounters between 2008 and 2016 with the police in just one district of Malir in Karachi. Most of the cases have been reported from Sohrab Goth, a Pashtun majority neighbourhood where Naqeeb Mehsud lived. Another media report in the past few days suggests that the departmental inquiry committee is collecting details about the killings of 250 people in 60 police encounters carried out in the last three years under the supervision of suspended SSP Malir Rao Anwar.
If the high number of staged encounters were happening in recent years as a routine matter, why did then such a public reaction come at this particular occasion and not sooner? Is the current reaction, both of public and the state authorities, against extra-judicial killings of all kinds or is it only against extra-judicial killings of perceived or real ‘innocent’ individuals alone? In the latter case, is it because extra-judicial killings were and are understood to be a necessary part of the so-called ‘war on terror’ and to curb criminality in general? What are the dynamics of the current episode of public and institutional reaction? Is it likely to be consequential? Will it lead to a vociferous demand for transparent and constitutionally compliant policing? These are some of the questions we must try to answer in order to get a sense of what’s going on.
Half a dozen serving and former police officials said such extra-judicial killings were being used as a 'policing technique and a way to release the burden on courts'
Anwar has been in the police service for thirty years or so and is reported to have risen to the current rank from assistant sub-inspector, an extraordinary feat in the Pakistani context. Was his specialist skill the main reason for his rise and rise in the police hierarchy? He is not the only officer known for such ‘special skills’ because figures tell us that he could not be. In 2013, the Sindh police with the help of the Rangers and intelligence agencies, unleashed a campaign against armed gangs and suspected militants in Karachi. Murders were reported to go down to 202 in 2015 compared with 2,507 in 2013. According to the same report by Reuters, half a dozen serving and former police officials said such extra-judicial killings were being used as a ‘policing technique and a way to release the burden on courts’. While writing a report on extra-judicial killings some years ago, I interviewed police officers who held identical views on extra-judicial killings and torture, both considered to be essential part of policing. The research showed that provincial governments considered extra-judicial killings necessary for the successful running of state affairs and good image of the government.
Could the apex court which keeps a track of news on human rights conditions to fulfill its constitutional obligations miss out on the developments in Karachi between 2013-17? Is it possible that the IG Sindh Police and the Sindh Government were unaware of SSP Anwar’s conduct? Were the members of public now engaged in condemning Mehsud’s killing unaware of regular reports appearing in the media about extra-judicial killings? The answer to all these questions can only be one.
What has happened in Mehsud’s case is rare. He had a social media profile which was popular among the Pashtun youth who upon receiving news of his killing as a TTP terrorist at the hands of the police immediately reacted angrily. Since they could identify as an innocent citizen therefore support for his cause came unhindered. This luxury is not available to suspects who cannot be identified as innocent. Killing of a known innocent like Mehsud is morally abhorrent; extra-judicial killing of a lesser known or an unknown suspect terrorist has not yet become morally unacceptable for us. This is what made Naqeeb Mehsud’s cause a popular cause.
The reaction from state authorities including the court and the provincial government as well as from within the provincial police department is knee jerk, at best. There’s no appetite to ask difficult questions. Torture and extrajudicial killings are acceptable so long as they target the suspected terrorists and criminals; the ‘other’ in the war on terror and criminality. It is strange that state and society would imagine that innocent individuals won’t become target of fake encounters when the suspects can ‘legitimately’ be killed by ‘encounter specialists’. It is this mindset which promotes criminality in the rank and file of the law enforcement agencies. Till such time it remains acceptable, Naqeeb Mehsuds will keep dying unnatural deaths.