What’s required is a clear intent and purpose, precise strategies, sharp tactics and flawless implementation.
Let’s consider three different and current scenarios before we go deep into the case for police reforms.
1. The rape and murder of a veterinary doctor in Hyderabad caused nationwide outrage of the intensity last seen in December 2012 when Nirbhaya was gang-raped and tortured in a private bus in Delhi. She later succumbed to her injuries. The Hyderabad doctor was found with her body half burnt. One isn’t surprised at the jubilation that this police action elicited across the country. It is testament to the faith and trust (or lack of it) people have in due process and rule of law. Parents of the veterinary doctor have welcomed the instant justice delivered by the Hyderabad cops.
2. So have Nirbhaya’s parents. It’s almost seven years but the system could seal the fate of the culprits who snatched away their daughter from them. If such is the state of affairs in a high profile case whose every development is closely scrutinised by the people, what to even speak of other crimes which don’t register on the media radar.
3. A letter by G.R. Raghavender, Joint Secretary, Department of Justice, addressed to the important functionaries of the Ministry of Law and Justice said that “re-engineering of court procedure for quick disposal of cases” is one such idea which can reduce the burden on the judiciary. Another idea suggested was to provide better infrastructure to district and lower courts and increase the strength of the subordinate judiciary (as reported in the Economic Times). Data reveals that in the high courts, over 43 lakh cases are pending, while in the Supreme Court, the figure touches almost 60,000. Underscoring that a number of cases have been pending for last 25 years, Vice President Venkaiah Naidu has suggested a the division of the Supreme Court into a Constitution bench based in Delhi, and four new benches in Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai or Hyderabad, as per the suggestion of the Law Commission.
Are we surprised that whenever such high-profile cases occur the governments pay lip service and set up a few enquiry commissions and allow justice to take its due course? Everyone knows what that “due course” means; endless delays and meandering courses with possible bail and release.
What’s more surprising is that while the government started thinking about judicial reform, particularly in terms of large pendency of cases, it has somehow failed to see the elephant in the room; the much-needed police reforms and connected reforms of criminal justice systems. Large pendency is just one part.
When we say that the police cannot be allowed to play judge, jury and executioner, and certainly not given the fact how vulnerable it is to the influence of those in power, do we really look at the whole picture?
Consider the following:
1. Lakhs of posts are vacant in police departments across the country (19 lakhs less than the sanctioned strength). Around three million cases are pending in courts, half of which are pending for more than two years. Around 5,000 judicial posts are vacant at the subordinate level. The figure for high courts is in hundreds.
2. The total spend on the judiciary is around 0.01% of the gross domestic product or GDP (2013-14 figure). And this is all about capacity. There are several administrative reforms in courts and prosecution which can speed up justice. There is no lack of solutions on this front.
3. Our police force is one of the weakest in the world. According to studies, there are only 144 police officers for every one lakh people, considerably less than the United Nations-recommended number of 222. States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal are even worse with less than 100 police staff for 100,000 population.
When we say short-sighted politicians with eyes on votes won’t be bothered about it and only truly selfless would even give these issues a consideration, are we convinced it’s true that politicians alone are to be blamed? How about bureaucrats who have the proximity to the politicians and the government?
The country is crying for reforms in almost every sector. There are pressing demands for reforms in police, judiciary, economics, education, law, agriculture, banking…you name it and there reforms are urgently needed. There are also committees and commissions set up time and again for every sector and lengthy reports are gathering dust with every ministry. Whenever crises occur, new commissions or committees are set up with tenures running to years and a fresh report is submitted, which meets with the same fate.
Who will read these reports and initiate action at some point of time? When the politician is busy with elections and party affairs, at least the bureaucrats have some leverage and discretion as to what needs to be highlighted and brought to the notice of the political bosses. This is where the bureaucracy has failed the nation. On the other hand, the bureaucracy had a “single directive” issued to CBI that no bureaucrat above the rank of Joint Secretary to be investigated, let alone prosecuted, without permission from the government, which is themselves! Rajiv Gandhi gleefully did it as he was riding a landslide victory. So, the bureaucracy knows how and when to get things done for themselves.
For instance, take police reforms. Any number of different parties in government, police commissions, reports, parliamentary committees, even Supreme Court directives; practically nothing could move the government to implement them. The system as designed in 1860 still continues and the forefathers who showed so much wisdom in other matters, failed to show the same maturity in designing the police force for the needs of a free India and not the British intent of ruling the natives by oppressing the natives. The main idea of setting up police commissions was to insulate the police from the influence of politicians. The whole debate on police reform has centred around this issue since the National Police Commission’s Second Report came out in August 1979. This was followed by the reports of Ribeiro Committee on Police Reform (1998), Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reform (2000) and finally the Soli Sorabjee Committee’s draft model Police Act (2006) to replace the Police Act of 1861. This may be the reason why politicians don’t want to disturb the hornet’s nest; to insulate the police from the political influence. Even Supreme Court directives for implementation of police reforms has little effect on the Central and the state governments, especially regarding setting up of State Security Commissions (SSC). The Supreme Court even wanted setting up of Police Establishment Boards in each state to ensure proper functioning of the police.
Another possible reason for the state governments for not implementing the recommendations of the National Police Commission (NPC) could be that the NPC wanted to “lay down that the power of superintendence of the state government over the police should be limited for the purpose of ensuring that police performance is in strict accordance with law.” Doesn’t it restrict the unlimited powers of the state governments?
This is precisely why a statutory base is required for the National Police Commissions and the State Security Commissions, which could be achieved by a well intending majority government at the Centre. The entrenched system of abuse of power and lack of political will to introduce police reforms needs to be countered by establishing institutional structures backed by the force of law.
The idea of the police being a part of the community and accountable to it and of a policeman being a citizen in uniform, sensitive to the requirements of others and a means of accessing justice to the vast majority, was never intended to be. The police in India was created by the British to oppress Indians with Indians. This fundamental error in conception was sought to be changed by the NPC. Unfortunately, the same concept suits our present day masters too. That’s why they don’t want to change it. And that’s how it became the three most prominent features of the ugly face of the policeman in India; his partiality, brutality and corruption. These features are clearly and particularly noticeable when he is dealing with poor and disadvantaged people. The British raised the police in this country on a militaristic and authoritarian pattern. There was tremendous emphasis on maintenance of a type of discipline, which bordered on regimentation. Some studies of police stress have shown that the main cause of police stress is not so much the job itself but the “police bureaucracy.” The policies of the department and the manner in which the leadership handles men and situations cause tremendous stress.
Instead of taking remedial action, the excuse given is that police is a state subject and the police reform reports get forwarded to the states, where they are pending. To remind you, who’s a constant factor in the states? It’s not the politician, the parties, the government or anything else; it’s the state-level bureaucrats again. At worst, you can blame governments and politicians with lack of attention for these issues.
Well, it’s only an excuse, because if the government were serious, they would have started implementation in states where the same party rule is there. Or at the least in Union Territories, which are under Centre’s control. Or if they’re dead serious, they’ll try to circumvent the Constitutional hurdles by amendments and ordinance, just as it was done in case of abolition of Article 370. Especially when the government has a majority in Parliament, if that was the only hurdle in the past. For instance, why police couldn’t be brought on Concurrent List to check states like West Bengal and Kerala playing truant?
So, what’s stopping this? Is it a lack of political and bureaucratic will combined together? Why? Is it because the bureaucracy fears losing importance? Is the politician afraid of police becoming more efficient? What’s the reason for fortifying the Central police organisations and not the state police forces? Is it power and control?
Ironically, we spend a lot of resources on external security—the Army, intelligence, and the border security forces. But we fail to appreciate that a robust internal security mechanism like the police requires to be in place to complement the efforts on the border. When the government introduces laudable schemes and sensitive legislations, and certain groups enjoy their right to protest by burning public property, does it not look ridiculous if the police looks helpless with their hands tied? Didn’t we see how policemen were brutally attacked when goons clashed inside JNU, Delhi recently?
We seem to have the burden of not only vested interests but also volatile heterogeneous public, which appears ready to jump to wrong conclusions if instigated by these elements and indulge in violence at the drop of a hat. If a majority government has lawful, longstanding issues to resolve and an opposition despite having near-zero presence in Parliament, can cause havoc on the streets, albeit for a short while only to switch to another issue, all that the government has are appeals and pleadings for peace as their defence! Why it doesn’t occur to them to strengthen the arms of the police to deal with it firmly? How do these anti social elements have so much defiance and arrogance and police have so little deterrence? Why are we so scared of “police atrocities” and not “goon atrocities”, and inculcate politeness in them in such an overdose that they become pussies? Any democracy in the world, worth its salt, has a strong police force on the ground; so strong that they border on brutality. In India, ASI Wilson of the Tamil Nadu Police gets killed walking the street and no one cares. In our country, who killed the fear of the police, who took away the power of deterrence from the hands of the police?
DETERRENCE
What’s deterrence and how does it operate? In California, where I live, I went for a walk one morning. I noticed the traffic extraordinarily polite, going within speed limits, stopping at stop-signs etc at a particular junction. When I turned around, I found a police car parked unobtrusively in one corner. There was no cop to be seen. The car was removed after a couple of days. Later when I was talking to the police chief he laughed and said it was a standard practice to just leave a car like that, particularly when traffic violations showed an increase in that area. No wastage of manpower and improved law and order! I couldn’t help thinking about our police who along with their cars are stone-pelted. Is this democracy or shamelessness? Would you like to attempt the same trick in our place without running the risk of getting the police Jeep stolen, repainted and resold?
One overriding cause could be our colonial attitude of excessive reliance on bureaucracy. It’s possible that the bureaucracy simply doesn’t understand and lack a passion for any issue plaguing the country. They simply “function” covering their back all the time. Covering their back includes hiding their mistakes and protecting the wrongdoers among them, and preventing the experts in the subject from taking over their place. As a result, the experts who have passion retire and write articles and deliver speeches hoping that those in power will read, listen and act someday. All that the bureaucrats do is to use their proximity to power; present this and not that, push it here and suppress another there. They can’t be blamed; it’s like you don’t lie, but you don’t speak the truth either.
What’s required is not more and more commissions and reports; not laws and ordinances, not articles and essays in papers and academics. It’s all there already, in the hands of those in authority and I am not going to enumerate the “salient features of police reforms”. What’s required is a clear intent and purpose, precise strategies, sharp tactics, and flawless implementation. In short, take out the commissions’ reports, dust them, and work on them.
Political, bureaucratic and people reforms anyone, before we even think of police reforms?
Sampath Ramanujan, a former IPS, has dealt with airport security and industrial security, and worked in policing, law & order and intelligence, apart from handling corporate security in top corporates.