news details |
|
|
| Police must reform itself | | | Joginder Singh
Police gets it in the neck, if it does, and also when it does not. Besides law and order policing and investigation, another dimension, which is by far the most important, has been added to its charter of duties. And that is to maintain internal security and fight homegrown terrorism.
Terrorism was unknown and, in fact, the word did not even figure in the dictionary when the present laws, under which India’s police is functioning, were framed. The job of the Indian defence forces, including the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, is to protect the country from foreign invasion. It has unified command and clear operating procedures. No one questions the Army or other defence forces, if they have to kill intruders while discharging their duty. As long as they achieve their objectives, they do not have to give any explanation as to why they killed a large or a lesser number of soldiers.
However, an attack by terrorists and their henchmen is not considered on the same footing as a war. The reason: such attacks take place in different states which have separate police force to deal with it. Theoretically, law and order being a state subject, the Central government turns around and says that it is the state’s responsibility to maintain peace and harmony. As a result, there is no unified approach or method. It is uncertain whether to deal with it sternly or with kid gloves, and whether to treat it as a national problem or a local issue. This despite the fact that the problem of terrorism is so grave that in 2007, on an average, seven persons were reported to be killed everyday in terrorist attacks. As per a report of the United States’ National Counterterrorism Centre, India is third on the list of highest "terror toll", after Iraq (13,611) and Afghanistan (4,673).
The modern day jihadis are tech-savvy. They computer and telecom experts, software and electronic engineers, hoteliers, management experts, who have been thoroughly indoctrinated to kill "kafirs" and the so-called "non believers". In other words, all non-Muslims. In the bomb blasts that took place in Delhi on September 13, two members of of Indian Mujahideens were killed in a daylight encounter. One inspector of the Delhi police also lost his life and two other policemen were seriously injured. But still there are people who have been talking loosely about it being a fake encounter. As if the Delhi police killed their own officer, and injured some others. The allegation is absurd. But since the credibility of the police is generally so bad, some people will believe anything against the police.
A survey has revealed that eight out of 10 people in Delhi approve and support encounters. An overwhelming majority favours encounters because, they say, criminals deserve to die and courts are rarely able to convict them. Perhaps, Delhi’s mood has something to do with its rising desperation over a crime and terrorism situation that is spiralling. This includes the latest blasts on September 13 and 27. The bigger the criminal, the harder it is to get him convicted. Either witnesses do not depose in court, or the trial keeps getting delayed.
Unlike other executive wings of the government, the police have maximum visibility. And visibility takes away anonymity.
Reforms in the police system have been due since the last 147 years. The British, who wrote the Police Act 1861, had set up a commission in 1902-1903. After examining witnesses and the performance of the police, the commission had observed that "there can be no doubt that the police force throughout the country is in a most unsatisfactory condition... abuses are common everywhere... this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the government, and radical reforms are urgently necessary".
Thirty years after Independence, the government had set up a Police Commission, under the chairmanship of late Dharam Vira, which also said the same thing.
But our politicians are not just unwilling, but totally opposed to improving the police system. The Supreme Court order of September 2006 in the Prakash Singh vs Union of India also speaks of reform. In fact, police reform, notwithstanding the Supreme Court directive, is not even on the election agenda or manifesto of any political party. As a result, it is the common man who is the victim, as his grievances are not redressed. The rich do not bother, as they can bribe their way out of any case or crime. The poor cannot bribe and so the see-saw game goes on.
All said and done, despite the handicaps and government indifference, it is up to the police leadership to ensure that police officers are the first to follow the law of the land. If law enforcers themselves violate law, then who would respect them. Many police officers look upon human rights as a stumbling block. Let them put themselves in the shoes of innocent victims and then honestly ask themselves whether the emphasis on human rights is justified or not. The police may not like the laws for dealing with terrorism, but as long as the laws are on the statute book, they have to be followed, irrespective of anybody’s personal inclinations. If there is even a hint of suspicion about any of its work or operations, including encounters and killing of terrorists, it should have the courage to come clean so that the right message goes to the public — that they can depend on the police. Remember what Winston Churchill once said, "Courage is rightly considered the foremost of the virtues because upon it, all others depend."
Joginder Singh is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
