The recent campaign by Anna Hazare (Indian Newslink, April 15) reflected India’s exhaustion with corruption and impunity.
Each of these negatives is nowhere better evidenced than in policing.
Transparency India Report puts the Police on top of the corruption stakes and 90% of all complaints to the National Human Rights Commission were against Police abuse.
From rank and file who harass the weak and vulnerable to grease their palms to the echelons of the CBI who work at the wink and nod of the most powerful, the public suffers law enforcement, hates, and fears its agencies.
Yet nothing changes.
An outmoded Act
It is troubling that India continues to be policed by laws that are 150 years old. The Indian Police Act (1861) followed the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857.
It modeled itself on the militaristic Irish Constabulary rather than the civilian London Metropolitan model used across the British Empire. Its only goal was to hold down the population whenever necessary by creating a rigidly disciplined force whose hierarchy commanded unquestioning loyalty and culture, isolated from the native population.
Although outdated, the model remains in force because it suits the ruling elite and the class-based policing hierarchy well.
But it does not suit Indians who have little trust in their Police. They accustomed to the dismal performance of the Police and rely instead on private self-help, unless in dire straits.
India needs policing that is suitable for a democracy, not a colony.
A policeman must be no more than a citizen in uniform, a protector of safety and security and most of all, an upholder of law and accountable to it.
Regrettably, the Federal and State Governments in India have done nothing to make this happen.
Community orientation
Policing must be community oriented, allowing a well educated and trained constable to be independent of the political executive and capable of making decisions at the community level. This concept finds its origins in London’s ‘Bobby System,’ under which a constable would patrol the streets unarmed.
The police are of unimpeachable integrity and accountable.
The Indian Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment on September 22, 2006, in the Prakash Singh vs Union of India case. Though it took the Court nearly a decade to reach a verdict, it served as a catalyst for reforms.
Seven Directives unheeded
The Appellate Court directed the Federal and State Governments to comply with a set of seven directives aimed at better Policing.
Directive One: Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to (a) Ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police (b) Lay down broad policy guidelines and (c) Evaluate the performance of the State Police
Directive Two: Ensure that the Director General of Police is appointed through a merit-based transparent process with a minimum two-year tenure
Directive Three: Ensure that other police officers, including Superintendents of Police in-charge of Districts and Station House Officers managing police stations are appointed for a minimum term of two years
Directive Four: Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the Police.
Directive Five: Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and recommend on postings and transfers above the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
Directive Six: Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against Deputy Superintendent of Police and above, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the police personnel below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
Directive Seven: Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) to prepare a panel for selection and placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations with a minimum tenure of two years.
A number of States have continuously challenged the above directives issued in 2006. Resistance to reform comes from all quarters; politicians want absolute control over the Police; the higher echelons of the Police have long made their peace with their political masters and are locked into cozy compacts of mutual benefit. Even those who would want some relief from this stranglehold are not keen on more accountability to courts and complaints authorities.
The bureaucrats are comfortable with Police in their grip through the executive.
The harassed and discontented public seems not to count.
Anna Hazard is perhaps the only hope.
Bajaj Chandramohan, presently volunteering for the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, is our Correspondent based in Delhi.
