By Balaji Chandramohan, IANS,
If corruption is a buzzword after Anna Hazare's campaign, then it's nowhere better reflected than in Indian police. The recent Transparency International India puts policing at No.1 in the corruption stakes and most of the complaints received by the National Human Rights Commission since its inception in 1993 are on police abuse.
The year 2011 will also mark the 150th anniversary of the Indian Police Act enacted along with the Indian Legislative Act, 1861, to rule the colonial British India.
Most of the problem in Indian policing has to do with the constitutional problems from where it stems. The Indian Police Act enacted by the colonial British government is 150 years old. One can understand the history surrounding the act as just before the Indian Police Act 1861 the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 took place.
The act was enacted taking into consideration that revolts needs to be crushed. Its aid was to quell natives. Constitutionally, the act was enacted to give more powers to the executive and not for the ordinary citizen. That's precisely the reason why since independence and India's becoming republic in 1950, no serious political discourse has taken place as politicians find it convincing to use and manipulate the police forces.
So the question arises whether there's any other alternative. The alternative is found in the British London Bobby system itself where supposedly a constable would be patrolling the streets unarmed. Under this system, the police are held accountable to the people.
In India, much talk on the police reforms was centred on judicial activism. For instance, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgement Sep 22, 2006, in the Prakash Singh vs Union of India case.
Though it took the court nearly a decade, this landmark decision served as a catalyst for reforms. The honourable court instructed the central and state governments to comply with a set of seven directives which, if implemented as a package, would lead to better policing.
The seven directives in a nutshell are:
1. Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to:
Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police;
Lay down broad policy guideline; and
Evaluate the performance of the state police.
2. Ensure that the director general of police is appointed through a merit-based transparent process and secure a minimum tenure of two years.
3. Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including superintendents of police in-charge of a district and station house officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years.
4. Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police.
5. Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters of police officers of and below the rank of deputy superintendent of police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of deputy superintendent of police.
6. Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of deputy superintendent of police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against the personnel below the rank of deputy superintendent of police in cases of serious misconduct.
7. Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of chiefs of the central police organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years.
All this was in 2006. It was hoped that the court's directives would act as a catalyst to push-start real reforms. But this has not happened. The court's directions have been repeatedly challenged by state after state.
With no joy from that, despite the presence of a monitoring committee coming back with a report of dismal compliance, states have either complied on paper and not implemented on the ground, or complied on some directions and refused on others, thereby making a nonsense of the scheme, or not complied at all.
This includes the central government which could have been the model for enthusiastic reform in a capital city where the people feel as unsafe from the police as from criminals.
The problem is more compounded by the fact that policing comes under state subject as per the Indian constitution. Resistance to reform comes from all quarters; the politicians want absolute control over the police; the higher echelons of the police have long made their peace and their bargains with their political masters and are locked into cosy compacts of mutual benefit.
Even those who would want some relief from this stranglehold are not keen on more accountability to courts and complaint authorities. The bureaucrats are comfortable with a police that is in their grip through the executive.
The harassed and discontented public seems not to count. The rich keep out of the way and the poor are too oppressed and powerless to take on the police or face off with an obdurate government that does not take note of their pain. Perhaps the only way to ensure change is through a movement like the Anna Hazare campaign against corruption.
0 comments:
Post a Comment