Media reports from New Delhi say that a group of ministers headed by the home minister P. Chidambaram has approved a civil aviation ministry proposal to incorporate the death penalty to hijackers in the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982. It will have to be brought before the Parliament for enactment. The Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 provides for life imprisonment for hijacking and acts of violence connected with hijacking against any passenger or crew of the aircraft.
According to the news paper report, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) had cleared the policy five years ago in a bid to make the anti-hijacking law more stringent . While no one doubts the intention of the government, it is not clear why it took ten years to decide to give teeth to the anti hijack law after the infamous December 1999 Kandahar hijack of Indian Airlines flight IC 814? The Kandahar hijack was an event of national shame. That hijack exposed the soft underbelly of the Indian government which buckled under the demand of a handful of Pak hijackers and released Masood Azhar, founder of the notorious Islamist terror group of Jaish-e-Mohammed, and three others in exchange for the hostages.
The abortive attempt by Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, a Nigerian Islamist terrorist, who tried to blow an the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit last Christmas-eve probably made the Indian government to sit up and take stock of the existing aviation security situation including anti hijacking measures in our own country.
The new proposal also provides for no negotiations whatsoever with the hijackers on their demands. Is it realistic? Can we enforce such a policy with iron-clad rigidity as Israel does? What happens if the terrorists start killing hostages one by one? Will the government in power be able to resist political and public pressures to negotiate with the hijackers? These are some of the questions that arise on the ‘no negotiation’ policy. Such policy strictly enforced would discourage hijacking. But our government’s decision making process in murky situations is quite suspect. So unless there is clear and unambiguous decision making based on firm self belief, mere enactments will not deter hijacking. It is actions more than enactments that speak loudly of government intention.
The Indian express also reported that in 2005 the government had "unveiled a tough anti-hijack policy under which any hijacked plane, being used as a missile to target vital installations as in the 9/11 terror attack, would be shot down." Enforcement of this policy is not going to be easy; it calls for great sagacity in decision making. Questions raised earlier about ‘no negotiations’ policy also need to be answered on this issue also.
At times the situation in the aircraft is confused and tricky; it is not always clear whether a plane is hijacked because pilots are under duress. In this context, two hijack scares - both IndiGo flights - reported in 2009 are of special interest. On July 23, 2009 Sanjay Malik a passenger on board flight GE-181 from Delhi to Mumbai triggered a mid-air scare claiming there was a bomb on board. He wanted the plane to be diverted to Karachi. However, the crew managed to control the situation and the plane was landed safely. Malik was reported to be mentally deranged. In another incident on February 1, 2009 "threatening behaviour" of a passenger reported by the pilot on a flight from Goa to Delh brought on the NSG commandos to the tarmac and air force fighters were scrambled. On safe landing the unruly passenger was found to be drunk; he and two other passengers were arrested. So decision to shoot down an aircraft full of passengers is not going to be easy. This dilemma has bugged the U.S. also. In any case a determined terrorist could still hijack and crash the aircraft on the target while vital moments are lost in taking the difficult decision to shooting down he aircraft.
Basically, our weakness is not in enactments. It is in evolving systems and in enforcing the existing acts and procedures. Proclaiming a death sentence to a hijacker is not enough. After all over a dozen criminals and terrorists sentenced to death are languishing in death row for over a decade because the government has not been unable to make its mind to carry out the sentence. Amazingly the list includes Afzal Guru who masterminded the attack on Indian Parliament! So how many terrorist hijackers, already brainwashed to die smilingly, would be deterred by the death sentence provided in the Anti-Hijacking Act 1982 is a moot point. Presumably, the amendment is to show the public the determination of the government's determination in fight hijacking than anything else.
Probably the best deterrent to hijacking would to nab the potential hijackers before they board the aircraft. It would require extra effort on the part of intelligence agencies to collect real time information. The back end coordination at the airports wit national security and intelligence agencies aided by adequate and updated technology would make it more difficult for hijacker to seep through the airport security net.
Foolproof preventive security measures in airports would make hijacking a tough and risky proposition. But I am not very confident whether the security measures in minor airports like Trichy, Bhuj or Jorhat are as good or as strict as in major airports like New Delhi, Mumbai or Kolkatta. Moreover, is the state police apparatus well integrated in the whole chain to forewarn and forestall hijack attempts? One can only hope these aspects are getting the attention they deserve.
[Some of the points contained in this article were included in an interview given by the author to the NDTV-Hindu on January 13, 2009.]
Courtesy: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers37%5Cpaper3605.html
No comments:
Post a Comment