Gentlemen,
I rather think that the FBI sought to point out the complete
failure of policy, not the
failure of police in the Bombay action. If we examine their report and the situation on the ground, there are actually SEVERAL major lacunae:
- Lack of a doctrine for anti-terrorism and counter-insurgency;
- Lack of training and of equipment to carry out the doctrine;
- Lack of human living conditions for lower level policemen;
- Lack of leadership; and
- Lack of political will.
Permit me to expand on it in brief. Let us take doctrine first.
In the case of terror incidents, there ought to be, first of all, a clear doctrine covering
- definition of a terrorist incident
- the mechanism to recognise such incidents early in their life-cycle
- the chain of command to be initiated under such conditions
- the response to such incidents -
- force alone,
- force and negotiations,
- the location of resources to cope with these incidents
- the impingement of the chain of command with these resources
- the composition of such resources, including
- armed personnel
- command and control resources, preferably transportable, with links and pre-determined interfaces to regular resources, such as
- local police,
- local fire-fighting,
- local civil defence,
- local civil authorities,
- local political authority
- trained negotiators
- medical support
- disaster management support, such as fire-fighting and anti-gas or bacterial and chemical containment crews
- external communications officers, including press officers
- executive authority, possibly an executive magistrate
- validity of decisions made under duress,
- responses to negotiations, and
- the empowered authority (within the chain of command established) to manage such response: for instance,
- food and drink in a hostage situation;
- emergency medical assistance;
- communications resources, such as mobile phones, satellite phones;
- demand for logistics, like boats or road vehicles or aircraft;
- demand for access to public broadcasting;
- back-up and reinforcement against heavy casualties
Similar doctrine needs to be established for
counter-insurgency. This is not present - visibly - in either India or Pakistan.
It is only after this step is taken that one can begin to build forces, arm and train them, house and shelter them, provide a leadership structure, probably a JCO structure of command rather than put in IPS officers at grass-roots level, a structure that has proved unsuccessful in either anti-terror and counter-insurgency, and challenge the politicians to put their will behind legislation or administrative measures to realise the doctrine.
But the doctrine comes first.
Connanxlrc1000 said:
well our poltical baboons get Z plus security but you know what these bloody idiotictic baboons never think of upgrading our police forces. if the common police person was equipped in accordance to 21st century standard 26/11 would have been a different story
Adam Gilchrist said:
I have a question too...Mumbai now has Force 1 and NSG too...so i wanted to know incase of a terrorist attack who will go to the scene first and what is the need of both Force 1 and NSG in the same city??
they should have used the same funds to equip and train police personal
instead of all this hype
I believe that your several slightly variant points may have been covered by the observations above.
Sir,
u ask me what contribution I have made for the defense of India ,I m sorry to say but the only contribution I have made is to pay my tax (every single penny of it) honestly for the past 10 years.
What is the meaning of the Canadian flag in your identity? You pay your taxes in
Canada and help to defend India? In Canada?
I cannot pick up a weapon and start fighting ,for it is not my job.
Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
Nor can an unarmed policeman, or even an armed policeman armed with an ancient bolt-action SMLE. The armed policeman is trained to fire from a rank of policemen lined up at a violent, rioting mob, not to take cover and start shooting at AK47 wielding terrorists.
Evidently the fact that a policeman wears uniform has confused you.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, a policeman is nothing but an unarmed civilian, just like anything unarmed civilian, unless he belongs to a specific unit trained for the job of resisting terrorists or insurgents.
Please try to remember, once again, that a policeman has four duties, and three of them do not involve anti-terror or counter-insurgency measures.
Please try to remember:
a policeman
- maintains law and order under ordinary circumstances, against, say, people quarrelling outside a bar because they are tipsy, petty thieves quarrelling over the distribution of loot; even, in extreme cases, communal violence, and resultant riots;
- regulates traffic;
- detects crime and seeks to prevent it. Here we are talking about crimes such as robbery, assault and battery, cheating, running gambling dens or houses of ill fame, and so on.
These roles do not include terror or insurgency, or the prevention of organised violence by specialised perpetrators of violence, like terrorists and insurgents.
It is NOT the job of ordinary or regular policemen to prevent terrorism or insurgency;
this is the job of the armed police.
It is NOT the job of a traffic policeman to stop a terrorist in a vehicle trying to get away;
this is the job of the armed police.
For your information, a normal, regular policeman cannot, for instance, regulate traffic; unless specifically trained and tasked for it, he cannot do it. In addition, in India, he is not authorised to make traffic arrests. A little investigation of cognisable and non-cognisable offences, and the necessity of an FIR to authorise arrests or a warrant in the case of non-cognisable offences, would help the discussion along.
Please try to understand: a postman also wears uniform, a post man and a beat policeman are equally well-equipped to stop armed terrorists.
In brief, it appears that your criticism, unlike that of the FBI, is based on your own understanding of the law and of law enforcement. This differs radically between the US and India, so no direct comparison is possible. Handcuffing is standard in the US; it is forbidden in India.
Also when u mention that the policeman who bear arms but have to take permission to fire, I m aware of the procedures.
I doubt it strongly. Nothing that you have said earlier, nothing that you have said in this post, indicates that.
But my question to u is if a terrorist is opening fire and killing innocent civilians ,a policeman whose duty is to protect is to protect people runs away ,U r saying that the policeman did the right thing?
No, not at all. But an armed policeman can resist, and an unarmed policeman cannot resist.
Try to remember why they give gallantry awards, since you know about Saragarhi and Longowal and seem to be a military expert. These awards are given, the higher awards are all given for courage over and above the call of duty.
I am quite sure that you were never aware of this, but will now claim that you were.
Let me explain the point as simply as I can. Failing to rush at an AK47 wielding terrorist is not a failure of duty, if one is unarmed; rushing that AK47 wielding terrorist is gallantry over and above the call of duty, if the unarmed policeman does such a thing.
Constable Omble was gallant over and above the call of duty, but that does not mean that those who realised that they were unable to stand up to rapid fire from an automatic assault rifle were guilty of dereliction of duty. It is their seniors who were, those who failed to work to protect the city against such an eventuality.
Tell me sir/other people on this forum if ur own family was at that train station ,will u still defend that policeman?
Yes. I am not a hypocrite.
there were other constables who actually performed their duties like the guy who captured Kasab and we should all honor him for his bravery.He was also one of
the mumbai police (with similar training). but I CANNOT applaud an act of sheer cowardness.
I don't remember that ANYONE asked you to do any such thing. Are you authorised to hand out certificates of courage? Tell me, have you even heard an automatic rifle being fired, within a range of twenty to thirty feet? Not in the movies, not in computer games, but in real life? Are you sure that you can be brave at such a time, knowing that you will be next if you are spotted, and you have nothing with you with which to resist the armed man?
I should like to know what right you have to sit in judgement if you do not have the courage yourself to stand up to such impossible odds. Even soldiers duck bullets, for heavens' sake. You might also have read about, though never seen, a trench.
Ask the Indian Army major who joined this forum recently, and he'll tell you what you need to know about how to evaluate cowardice.
Also other people ,who feel proud of our police forces kindly read this article. there are cowards/undeserving people in our police and we cannot applaud them fort the same
The rest of your post is truly beneath contempt.
You are obviously not only mean in spirit, but an active mischief-maker, because the behaviour of rogue cops in Delhi in the anti-Sikh riots has nothing to do with what we are discussing, the conduct of policemen in Bombay during the terrorist attacks.
For that matter, there are also cowards/undeserving people, who sit and intone platitudes about death and glory from their position in a comfortable western society well-equipped against terrorists and against war in any form, and whine about the courage of others. So what? For every rogue policeman, there are a hundred thousand other rogue unarmed civilians.
sir, did u go thru my last post? After reading it, do u still feel proud of our police?
venting ur anger on other people is not gonna change any ground realities.
Dear Sir,
I cannot answer for 'Kinetic' but I can answer for myself.
I do not feel proud of our police. They are paid professionals doing their duty. I do not feel proud of anyone who is doing their duty for pay; that is what they chose to do, that is the profession they chose, and that is all there is to it. But I do see that they are brave people who do their duty, do what they are trained to do, in spite of being up against impossible odds on occasion.
I do feel ashamed, however, of people who are the most hypocritical, mean and back-biting kinds of individual, who mock in others those qualities that they cannot display themselves.
To them, the advice needed is simple:
First, do something - anything - courageous, then sit in judgement on others.
If a simple tax-payer who has paid every penny for the last ten years and thereby earned the eternal blessings of India and her Finance Ministers during the period (always assuming that the taxes were paid to India) wonders what act of bravery can be demonstrated, let him try this bravery thing in easy steps. Don't let him hurry and spoil things.
As the first step, let him try crossing the road.
Sincerely,
