The mythological Greek god Cronus devoured his children to avoid being overthrown by them. He got away with that because he was a god, but no modern state being both a creature of the collective ‘will’ of its citizens and a vehicle of civilisation and human glory can get away with allowing its citizens to be killed by its own security agencies. Yet here it is not too uncommon to find citizens being killed extra-judicially and then killers getting away with it. Unfortunately, the easiest targets are of course the illiterate, the poor and the marginalised sections, those who are unaware of their rights and are politically orphaned. But the entire society has increasingly become vulnerable to one or the other threat caused by the state and non-state forces. Indeed, the killings have acquired a pernicious spectrum of artificial sanctity under various heads: national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national security, counter-terrorism, crime control, law and order, and, of course, protection of VVIPs. Hence, the drone strikes, police ‘encounters’, missing persons, ‘mob justice’, death in police custody, and shoot-to-kill orders are the various ghastly shades of this killing spectrum. But by allowing the extra-judicial killings under different heads, the state has become a de facto accomplice by commission and omission. As a result, the police and paramilitary forces operate as a law unto themselves; the prosecution service remains weak and ineffective; and the entire criminal justice system has miserably failed to protect the citizens from the excesses committed by or in the name of the state. The most lurid precedent of the state’s criminal negligence to keep its law enforcers in check was the recent cold-blooded murder of one Sarfaraz Shah, a 19-year-old unarmed and visibly famished citizen, who was killed by the Rangers in a posh locality of Karachi. He was accused of having been caught while committing a petty crime, not proven, yet a normal affair in this megapolis. But the way he was done to death is chilling. He was shot while he was literally beseeching the Rangers to show mercy to him. And then reportedly he was left bleeding for quite a while before being shifted to hospital where he was pronounced dead. Ironically, the police initially filed not one but two FIRs, not against the killers, but against the ‘thief’ who was shown to have been killed in an armed ‘encounter’ with the Rangers. No one would have known the truth had a courageous cameraman of a private TV channel not captured the entire enactment of this macabre scene. And perhaps not one head would have rolled had their lordships of the Supreme Court not issued a gloriously memorable order in the annals of social justice and human rights, ordering removal of both the DG Rangers, Sindh, and IG police Sindh from their posts. One hopes just as the video of the public lashing of an innocent girl in Swat by the local Islamist terrorists had instantly turned the entire country against the terrorists and the military received a tremendous public support in flushing out the terrorists, the footage of Sarfaraz Shah’s brutal killing would also set a new and healthy pattern of relationship between the public and the (rogue) law enforcement agencies. It is hoped that now a minimum bar would be set for using force against the unarmed citizens by the security agencies. But the hope dampens when one recalls that just before Sarfaraz Shah’s killing, another gory bloodbath had place at the hands of rogue security apparatus in Quetta in which a few foreigners, men and women, were brutally mowed down right in front of the cameras. In England, every incident of police firing is investigated by an independent commission. But not here. True, one should also take into account the impossible political and security environment in which the security apparatuses have to perform their duties, tiptoeing on too many interests, public policies and political expediencies. Given the tough professional conditions and pathetic domestic realities, the forces must be under chronic and acute psychological stress. The killings of a powerful governor, Salmaan Taseer, and of a cowering lowly man, Sarfaraz Shah, by the low-ranking security personnel clearly reflects among the ranks a receding sense of respect both for high office and human life. Moreover, it is difficult to expect that the security personnel would not be affected by the existing ethnic, sectarian, social and economic pressures. In fact, the lower ranks are both the cause and effect of extremism and intolerance, exacerbated by their worsening socio-economic conditions. After all, they come from the same lower middle-class background, as do their objects: the terrorists, outlaws and common men. Which make them strive on two fronts: fight against the terror and crimes, and keep their own tenuous families afloat. But that would not justify the trigger-happy streak in the forces. In fact, the overuse and overt display of arms have universally proved to be counterproductive. In England and Wales, only five percent of police officers carry arms. In other words, out of 140,000 police officers, only 7,000 carry arms. It was Robert Peel, a British prime minister and pioneer of the modern police, who laid down the minimal display of arms police on this premise: “The police are not supposed to impose order on an unwilling populace, but to operate with the consent of the community.” No wonder, the ‘bobbies’ are a friendly lot, notwithstanding the recent gush of anti-terrorist legislation. Therefore, people’s trust in the police is of utmost importance. And trust comes when police is a cooperative not a coercive apparatus, when police stations evoke a sense of security and hope, not fear and terror; when lodging a complaint with police is easy for the genuine complainants and retributive for the imposters; and when hardened criminals and known terrorists do not get away due to the incompetence, if not complicity, of the prosecution. Therefore, to create a people-friendly and effective security apparatus, we have to take bold decisions. The Rangers must not be used as a police force because they are not trained for policing, particularly in complex urban environments. At best, they may serve as a reserve or contingent force. It is the police that should be made the pivot of law and order and public security. They should be substantively reinforced in financial, administrative and logistical terms. Moreover, the officers should have tenurial security, merit-based evaluation and freedom from political interference. Given the economic and anti-terror battles still ahead, it is time we realised as a state and society that there can be no security without the accountability of the security apparatus and no peace and order without ensuring social justice and economic opportunities to all the citizens. Or else the killing spectrum will only worsen. The writer is a lawyer and academic. He can be reached at shahabusto@hotmail.com