Police Brutality in Perspective
No other factor has been responsible for tarnishing the image of the police in this country recently as much as their alleged involvement in several sensational incidents of brutality. The wave of shock felt by people over what happened at Narainpur in January 1980 had hardly subsided when the Baghpat incident hit the headlines. The shame of Baghpat had not died down when the Bhagalpur blindings in all their gory details once again projected the police as a body of barbarous men.
An Open Society
The exposure of such incidents and the national outcry that followed shows that, despite the odds, ours is an open society, something that can not be said of most developing countries. The popular wrath, however, should not take the shape of a mere emotional outburst. There is a need to examine coolly some of these incidents so that the important issues underlying the “problem of brutality” are highlighted and tackled effectively.
It is not as if the charges of brutal behaviour against the police have been made in this country alone. Similar allegations are often made against the police forces of advanced democratic countries too. As early as in 1931, the National Crime Commission headed by Mr. George W Wickersham in the United States sharply criticised the police departments for routinely using torture and third degree methods. In 1961, the US commission on civil rights found enough evidence to observe that “police brutality is still a serious problem through out the United States.” In 1966, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice came across incidents in which the police had used unnecessary force or violence.
Even in the United Kingdom, which was reputed to have one of the best police forces in the world, charges of brutality, corruption and racial prejudice have recently been leveled against the famous Scotland Yard. Indeed, some 245 persons are estimated to have died in police custody during the last 10 years in the U.K.
Following the “misadventure” verdict by the jury in the Blair Peach death inquest in May 1980, a Labour MP Mr. Martin Flannery, commented: “ It is clear that deep in the bowels of the British police force, there resides a group of terrible thugs who can do what they wish and will always be found innocent.” He was evidently referring to the 200- strong Special Patrol Group (SPG) of the Scotland Yard which was deployed to control the Southall disturbances in London in April 1979, during which Mr. Peach lost his life, allegedly owing to police action. These may be harsh words, but these are tell-tale.
Law in all countries authorises the police to use force under certain circumstances. This authority is, in fact, basic to its role and cannot be questioned. It is a part of policemen’ legal mandate. It is only when force used in either unnecessary or excessive that the problem of brutality crops up. Now why does this happen? Why does the police use excessive force against some people and in certain situations?
To say that the policemen are a group of mad sadists who derive pleasure by inflicting pain on others would be too simplistic an answer to merit consideration. There may be a few people in every force who relish the sight of broken heads and blinded eyes, but their number is always infinitesimally small compared to the total strength, though their capacity to do damage to the reputation and image of the force is certainly enormous. In his famous study on “Violence and the Police” conducted in an unnamed city of the USA, Mr. William A. Westely, an American sociologist, did find evidence of a small number of policemen “who are clearly sadists, who frequently commit brutalities repugnant to the rest of the police.”
Thee existence of this small group of people in the police organization can be explained on two counts. Firstly, as the police is the only organization authorised to use force, it may tend to attract some persons who really like to use it. Besides policemen in their day –to- day work see so much of violence and brutality in the raw that it may have the effect of degrading and dehumanising some of them.
The entire spectrum of police brutality and violence cannot, however, be explained by pointing to some sadists in the force. Even if the sadists are weeded out, instances of policemen going berserk may continue to occur as long as they are subjected to tremendous pressure and criticism for any increase in crime. When ever crime in general increases or any heinous crime, in particular, is committed, it is always the police which is singled out for blame.
Limited Ability
What is forgotten is that even under the best of circumstances the ability of the police to control crime is limited, as crime is a result of various factors over most of which the police has no control. In this country, where the circumstance are invariably adverse, its ability to control crime becomes further restricted. The law of the land is loaded against it. Judiciary suspects it. The politician uses it for his own ends and the public either fears it or hates it. The policeman’s status is low and his resources meagre but the expectations of the public are always very high. When the force cannot control crime, it is subjected to tremendous pressure form all sides.
Under these circumstances, a criminal is likely to be looked upon by policemen as a source of all trouble, an “animal” to be despised, an enemy to be fought. War against crime and criminals is a war for survival- a war in which, according to some policemen, all is fair. Taking shortcuts to solve solve cases and making short shrift of criminals is regarded by them as the only way to survive
When the prevailing system of criminal justice fails to give a feeling of security to the people, they seek alternative ways of protecting themselves against crime and criminals. In such an environment; the police may resort to extra-legal methods in the belief that these have been tacitly approved by the public.
This is what may have happened in Bhagalpur. The Bhagalpur incidents reflect the failure of the system of criminal justice and of the loss of faith on the part of the public in effectiveness. When law ceases to have any deterrent effect, when bail and not jail becomes the rule rather than the exception even in cases of hardened criminals, when well-connected criminals can commit the most heinous crimes with impunity, when courts remain clogged with cases and even murder and dacoity cases remain “pending trial” for many years, the possibility of the public extending support to the police when the latter uses extra-legal
methods or of its taking the law in its own hands is all too manifest.
Threat Of Vigilantism
What is reported to have happened in Bhagalpur and in some parts of West Bengal recently has thus very frightening implications. In the avalanche of criticism, directed mainly against the police, adequate attention has not been drawn towards the danger of vigilantism becoming gradually popular and widespread in the country, putting the clock back by a few centuries.
Vigilantism had become quite a powerful force in the 19th century America. There is a record of as many as 726 vigilante movement having emerged in that country between 1767 and 1910. They are said to have accounted for the death of as many as 326 people, all victims of “lynch justice” by the public.
Ours is a much more heterogeneous society than the American. Stratified as it is on the basis of caste and community, it is very vulnerable to the danger of vigilantism. Once it is rampant, it can only produce chaos, anarchy and injustice. It is, therefore, necessary to see the writing on the wall and devise suitable and effective methods to ensure that people do not take the law into their own hands.
All this apart, violent reaction by the police can also be expected in the face of apprehended or actual danger. Any assault on a policeman for instance, is viewed very seriously and the offender in such circumstances is likely to be roughed up by all the policemen present. The police shows as unusually high degree of occupational solidarity.
In fact, not only physical violence but even a tough aggressive posture of verbal abuse by any member of the public may provoke the police to use brutal force. A policeman is a fairly sensitive creature. Every hostile act, or even a gesture of defiance reinforces his feeling of insecurity and is likely to occasion a violent response.
Policemen are also apt to use third degree methods during the investigation. To deny this would be hypocritical. Such practices can be ascribed to various factors. Firstly, the strength of investigating officers in most police stations in the country is much less than what is required in the face of counting crime. They have to handle far greater number of cases every year than the prescribed norm or what is humanly possible. Besides, they are required to perform any number of other jobs. There is, therefore, always a tremendous pressure on the investigating officer to conclude his labours without delay. Since third degree methods
do prove useful in many cases, he resorts to them whenever necessary.
Secondly, nowhere else is the law of the land so biased against the police as it is in this country. Since the case on hand has not only to be “solved” but also made legally foolproof to stand scrutiny in a court of law, the investigating officer is tempted to take recourse to extra-legal methods. This actually creates a vicious circle. The police officer uses illegal methods in some cases because of inadequacies in the law. And, the law is not reformed on the ground that the behaviour of policemen does not justify reposing trust in them.
Lastly, resort to third degree methods during investigation may also be in some cases due to either the non-availability of scientific facilities at the police stations of the inability or unwillingness on the part of the investigating officer to use them.
This bird’s-eye view of the circumstances in which policemen use brutal force brings us to the important question: What to do about it? One obvious answer is to tighten the recruitment procedures and standards so that the sadists and emotionally unbalanced persons are not allowed to join the service. This may be supplemented by a system of regular screening to weed out those who have been corrupted or brutalised in the course of their career in the department.
Improving the standards of training is also called for. This in fact, is often advocated. It is, however,important to remember that training cannot be a panacea for all the ills that ail the police. The police being a disciplined and hierarchical organisation, strict supervision over the work of the lower ranks is the answer. It must, however, be ensured that such supervision does
not result in curbing initiative.
To discourage the use of brutal practices by the police, it is essential that the complaints received from the public are enquired into thoroughly and impartially and, if found valid, exemplary punishment is meted out to guilty officers. There is a feeling in the mind of the public that its complaints are generally ignored by the police department. This feeling should be removed by setting up, if necessary, a proper mechanism which can examine public complaints dispassionately and ensure remedial action.
Close Look Needed
The incidents of police brutality reported in the press also point to the need for a close look at the working of the entire system of criminal justice and at the role and responsibilities of the police. More than administrative measures and legislative reform, an iron will and honesty of purpose is required to control crime. It is a task in which everyone will have to participate. As the task force set up by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in the USA has put it: "The police is only one part of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is only one part of the government. And the
government is only one part of society. In so far as crime is a social phenomenon, crime prevention is the responsibility of every part of society.”
(Published in the Times of India dated February 26 & 27, 1981)
