E-Paper
Paying lip service to police reforms
AN OFFICER who spread terror in his jurisdiction was considered very competent. Complaints against him and his subordinates were overlooked by the departmental superiors, the magistracy, as well as the State Government.
AN OFFICER who spread terror in his jurisdiction was considered very competent. Complaints against him and his subordinates were overlooked by the departmental superiors, the magistracy, as well as the State Government.
In such an atmosphere, is it any wonder that policemen began to behave as if they were 'masters', and not 'servants' of the people.
All the grave shortcomings in police working were fully in the knowledge of the people, who came to power after the British left in 1947.
In fact, many of them had a first-hand experience of police barbarity. A radical reform of the police in order to make it an instrument fit to serve the needs of a democratic society should thus have been on the top of their agenda. But it was not to be. Very soon, the new masters discovered that a police force, completely under their control, could be made a very useful and convenient political tool. Although they continued to mouth slogans of undertaking wide-ranging police reforms to make the force accountable to law, they decided to continue with the existing system.
From time to time, governments at the Centre and in the States appointed commissions, committees and task forces to look into the need of police reforms and make recommendations. However, they made sure that no recommendation, which could loosen their hold over the police, was accepted.
Non-seriousness of the political executive to bring about a change in police functioning would be apparent from the fact that till today the clear and cogent recommendations of the National Police Commission continue to remain in cold storage even 25 years after the commission submitted its report.
To perform the task entrusted to them, the society has given wide-ranging powers and authority to policemen. No effort or expense should, therefore, have been spared to design such a mechanism for recruitment that only really suitable persons, having a proper mental attitude and possessing the necessary educational and physical qualifications, were selected for appointment. However, the recruitment process has, over the years, got so vitiated that money, caste and connections have become the primary criteria for selection.
A recruit thus begins his service with a feeling that in the police, extraneous factors have a far greater value than merit. Since most of the candidates for recruitment come from an economically poor background, they do not have the resources to pay the substantial bribe which is demanded.
Consequently, they have either to sell their ancestral land (or other property), or raise loans and, on appointment, their first priority becomes the 'recovery' of the amount in the shortest possible time. By the time a recruit is able to recoup it, he becomes habitually corrupt.
He also learns ways to protect himself from the result of his misdeeds by sharing bribe-money with those who matter and by pleasing 'powerful' people by unquestioningly carrying out their dictates. Expressing horror at police atrocities, the public as well as politicians (in power or out of it), always point an accusing finger at shortcomings in police training. They seem to hold that policemen act and behave in an improper manner because there are serious shortcomings in their training.
To my mind, this conjecture is altogether wrong. Since Independence, a number of high-powered committees have thoroughly examined the entire gamut of police training and have very thoughtfully designed and prescribed a comprehensive syllabus in which due emphasis is given to the concept of equality before law, need to desist from custodial violence of any kind (particularly the tendency to resort to third degree during investigation of crimes) and the need for adoption of a friendly attitude towards the people.
The training institutions do not depart from the syllabus. Yet many policemen are found behaving so badly that everyone tends to think that they have not been trained properly. There is actually a wide gulf between what policemen are taught in their training institutions and the working practices adopted in the field. The recruit is caught between the real and the ideal. Both the departmental superiors and the government are fully aware of this duality, but they see it all with their eyes widely shut. They think it is 'pragmatic' not to tinker with the system.
