In a significant and unprecedented development, the Jammu and Kashmir Police have introduced a GPS tracker anklet as part of monitoring measures for Ghulam Muhammad Bhat, a 65-year-old individual facing charges related to financing separatist activities. Bhat, who was released on bail more than a week ago, is at the center of a contentious debate that transcends regional boundaries and delves into the complex intersection of security imperatives and individual rights.
The decision to deploy a GPS tracker anklet on Bhat is a first for India and has sparked intense controversy and criticism, particularly from human rights activists. The device, designed to provide 24-hour surveillance, raises profound questions about the delicate balance between national security measures and the protection of individual liberties.
Ghulam Muhammad Bhat, a lawyer by profession, was arrested in 2011 under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), accused of financing activities linked to the Hurriyat Conference, a prominent separatist group in Indian-administered Kashmir. His association with Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Kashmir’s top separatist leader until his death in 2021, adds a layer of complexity to the case.
As part of Bhat’s bail conditions, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jammu mandated continuous tracking of his activities. The court order, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, emphasizes the need to monitor Bhat’s mobility closely. The introduction of the GPS tracker is seen as a response to the lack of mechanisms ensuring the compliance of bail conditions for individuals released on bail.
The GPS tracker, as described by an anonymous police officer, is GPS- and SIM-based, alerting the control room if an attempt is made to remove it. The technology, widely used in Western countries, is justified by law enforcement as a crucial tool to monitor real-time locations and ensure adherence to bail conditions.
However, the use of GPS tracker anklets has come under sharp criticism from rights activists who argue that it amounts to a form of “virtual imprisonment” and raises serious concerns about the privacy of an individual facing trial but not yet convicted. Mohamad Junaid, a Kashmiri and assistant professor of anthropology at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, contends that the technology presupposes guilt until innocence is proven, challenging the principles of justice.
The controversy surrounding the introduction of GPS tracker anklets in Kashmir highlights a broader debate on the ethical implications of such monitoring technologies. In September, a parliamentary panel recommended the use of GPS trackers on inmates to alleviate stress on India’s overcrowded jails, where 76 percent of prisoners are awaiting trial. The context of Kashmir, with 91 percent of prisoners awaiting trial, adds urgency to the discussion.
RR Swain, the director general of police in the region, defended the move, stating that there was a necessity for real-time monitoring to ensure the bail conditions of a suspect released on bail are being followed. He noted that the GPS tracker used is similar to those widely employed in Western countries and expressed satisfaction that the first tracker had been fixed on an accused person.
Ajai Sahni, a security analyst at the Institute for Conflict Management, argues that the GPS tracker serves as a condition for defendants to obtain bail, making it easier for both the accused and law enforcement. Sahni contends that the device, used globally, is especially crucial when an accused faces serious charges.
Ravi Nair, executive director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, offers a counterpoint, raising concerns about the potential infringement on fundamental liberties. Nair emphasizes that electronic tagging on an individual may raise issues related to freedom of movement and the right to privacy. The ethical, legal, and practical dimensions of electronic monitoring, particularly when carried out by private firms, become central to the ongoing debate.
The controversy also highlights the nuanced nature of the security challenges faced by regions grappling with insurgency and separatist movements. The clash between the imperative to maintain public security and the need to safeguard individual rights remains a complex and evolving global issue. The deployment of advanced technologies to address these challenges prompts a reevaluation of the ethical standards and legal frameworks governing such measures.
The introduction of GPS tracker anklets in Kashmir for individuals facing terrorism charges has ignited a multifaceted debate touching upon issues of justice, privacy, and security. The clash between the demands of national security and the protection of individual liberties underscores the complexities faced by regions dealing with insurgency. As the controversy unfolds, it serves as a critical moment for reflection on the ethical and legal dimensions of employing advanced monitoring technologies in the pursuit of justice and security.
