While birdshot-firing shotguns, colloquially called pellet guns, are dominating headlines in the aftermath of the student protest at Jantar Mantar, the weapon first found mention in , Ephraim Chambers’s 1728 Cyclopaedia. Soon after, these instruments of avian extermination were introduced to the arsenals of England and the US. It was in the late 1917 that the gun and its ammunition became a staple for law enforcement personnel in the two countries. This was also the period when labour movements were emerging, with the police increasingly having to control street protests.
Protests are prone to get unruly, spelling danger for the safety of people and property. In most constitutional democracies, the right to protest peacefully is a given. (Sabchit Khanna/HT Photo)
With petitioners, including a retired senior policeman, approaching India’s Supreme Court with a prayer to ban the use of pellet guns, two issues arise. One, though used in India and many other countries such as Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia and Iran by anti-riot police as a non-lethal weapon, is the pellet gun really non-lethal? And two, despite recommendations of various government committees and the standard operating procedures of law enforcement agencies, why is there no clarity on ground on their use on civilian populations?
The first question can be partly answered by reading two official documents in conjunction. In the report of Bureau of Police Research and Development submitted to the UPA government in 2010, the weapon was absent from the non-lethal category. In 2016, the TVSN Prasad Committee’s report recommended that the weapon should be used in rare cases. Non-lethal alternatives such as PAVA (chilli-based) shells were recommended when crowd control necessitated the use of force.
It is the second question that’s more vexatious. As reported by HT, an internal inquiry revealed that several personnel of the Rapid Action Force (RAF), a specialised riot control body of the CRPF, were issued pellet guns on July 20 during the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar. Petitioners put forth that these weapons violate the constitutional standards governing the use of force. The issuing and use of pellet guns is not the only concern. High level reviews have indicated that RAF personnel deviated from standard operating protocol at many fronts, including not using their nameplates.
Protests are prone to get unruly, spelling danger for the safety of people and property. In most constitutional democracies, the right to protest peacefully is a given. In the country of Mahatma Gandhi, it is an article of faith. Controlling a crowd of protestors, or the miscreants infiltrating the same, therefore, ought not to be a process ruled by tentativeness and ad hoc-ism. But this has to be balanced with the safety of law enforcement personnel. Clearly laid down guidelines which are inviolable even under duress do justice to both.
The CRPF chief has assured his force of complete support for bona fide action. He has also assured everyone of a fair review of the Jantar Mantar action. Since there is a significant element of discretion on the part of the police personnel while dealing with unarmed protestors, the intent is the key. And that makes everything trickier. Absolute transparency in investigations, along with swift action to punish the culprits, will strengthen enforcement agencies’ case when excesses are brought to light. As for the present case, the chief justice has already decried both the excessive use of force by police and violence by protestors as unacceptable. Two wrongs never make a right and in this scenario they have managed to open a Pandora’s Box of issues pertaining to the country’s security apparatus.
Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! -Login Now!
E-Paper
