Yesterday I had a visit from Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) Revati and three constables. I invited them in and they wanted to a tour of my house, since it is new and unique to this area. I complied with their request. And then they wanted to meet Chester. I agreed to take them there. While we were there the PSI asked that I write a personal statement about myself and details of my life. I agreed, then she asked that I submit a whole bunch of documents that showed I have purchased the place etc. etc. I was taken aback. I responded that unless there is an official request I would not comply. I wanted to know why I am being asked these questions and what is it that I am suspected of doing. She said it was in my interest in the event the IB folks came back again. Apparently this is being done in the name of security.I said, I would take this issue up with them. She then said it would be better if I visited the Police Station to give my statement. This was getting weirder and weirder and so I called my friend who heads up the Human Rights Legal Network in New Delhi to ask for his advice. He put me in touch with the Director in Bengaluru, who advised me that what was being requested was out of line. This was reassuring. In any case, I went down to the Police Station and gave a statement in response to the questions they ask me.
This whole experience casts doubt on the Intelligence Bureau methodology. Even a novice like me would assume that they would make discreet inquiries of people on their radar and gather some proof before confronting the person.
I later learned that the PSI asked at least one person about me. Shouldn't this have been done before approaching me, if it raised flags? Since I have nothing to hide, I welcome such profiling. It is good practice to keep tabs on who is who and what is happening on the coast line. But confronting a person and asking for details is putting the cart before the horse. If there is positive proof that a person is conducting nefarious activities, by all means take action. Otherwise shouldn't one be presumed innocent before being accused of being guilty?
P.S. Found out a few days later that the PSI had asked another person about me.
This whole experience casts doubt on the Intelligence Bureau methodology. Even a novice like me would assume that they would make discreet inquiries of people on their radar and gather some proof before confronting the person.
I later learned that the PSI asked at least one person about me. Shouldn't this have been done before approaching me, if it raised flags? Since I have nothing to hide, I welcome such profiling. It is good practice to keep tabs on who is who and what is happening on the coast line. But confronting a person and asking for details is putting the cart before the horse. If there is positive proof that a person is conducting nefarious activities, by all means take action. Otherwise shouldn't one be presumed innocent before being accused of being guilty?
P.S. Found out a few days later that the PSI had asked another person about me.
No comments:
Post a Comment