POLICING SINCE INDEPENDENCE
There has been considerable improvement in manpower and other resources of the police since Independence. The total strength of the police in India in 1947 was 3.81 lakhs. By 1995, the strength of the state police forces had increased to 13.41 lakhs. In addition, the central para-military forces, mostly raised since Independence, had a strength of 5.61 lakhs on 1.1.1995.
In 1947, the police forces were ill equipped without adequate transport and communication facilities. On January 1, 1995 about 73,000 different types of vehicles were available with the state police forces and a network of about 90,000 police wireless stations existed in the country. At the time of Independence, there was not a single full-fledged forensic science laboratory, while now there are 18 State and four Central Forensic Science Laboratories to provide scientific aids to investigation.
At that time, the educational standards of the police were low. Most of constabulary consisted of either illiterate or semi-literate personnel. Now matriculation is the minimum qualification for recruitment as constable and graduation for entry as Sub-inspector. The opportunities for exposure to new ideas and techniques through in-service training courses have also increased.
The expansion of the police forces and improvement in their resources have led to
considerable increase in expenditure on the police. In 1951-52, the revenue incurred bythe central as well as state governments on the police was only Rs. 58.73 crore. In 1995- 96, on the other hand, the expenditure incurred on the state police forces was as high as Rs.7198 crore.
What have been the returns to the public on the resources invested in policing?
Undoubtedly, the police now are larger in size, better equipped, better educated and presumably better trained than what they were earlier, but has there been an improvement in their professional standards? The public do not think so.
Crime, which causes tremendous human suffering and is a cause for major public
concern, has continued to rise. The total cognizable crime in 1948 was 6,25,909. By 1994, the latest year for which crime statistics are available, cognizable crime under IPC had increased to 16,35,251 i.e. by 161.2 percent. What is more disturbing, form public point of view is the fact that violent crime has increased at a faster rate than total crime. While only 49,578 violent crimes were reported in 1953, this figure had gone up to 2,35,228 in 1994 i.e. an increase of 374.4 percent. The increasing trend in crime had been accompanied by a continuous fall in conviction rate. While in 1961, 64.8 per cent of the IPC cases ended in conviction, by 1971, the conviction rate had declined to 62.0 per cent,by 1981 to 52.5 per cent, by 1991 to 47.8 per cent an 1994 to 42.9 per cent.
The fall in conviction rate indicates a decline in the quality of criminal investigations,though successful convictions do depend upon other factors too. The fact is that investigation work is not receiving adequate attention, with law and order and security duties figuring high in the priority list. It is this factor which has largely shaped the growth and composition of the police as well as the pattern of policing. There has been a rapid expansion of the armed police in the country. A number of new para-military forces have been established since Independence, particularly by the Centre and these forces have seen enormous expansion during the last few years. A huge chunk of central expenditure on police is being spent on the maintenance of these forces.
The record, however has not been entirely dismal. The police have some good achievements to their credit,particularly in dealing with emergency situations. They have handled a variety of law and order situations with reasonable success and their record in dealing with problems of insurgency and terrorism has not been bad. What is most creditworthy is the fact that the policemen have performed their arduous jobs under very tough conditions, making supreme sacrifices at the altar of duty. A large number of policemen have lost their lives in line of duty. The existence of a body of about 19 lakhs police personnel, fairly well disciplined, can be a great boon to society, provided their vulnerability to undesirable illegitimate pressures is reduced, their professional capability enhanced and they are made accountable for what they do and the manner in which they do it.
(Published in the Pioneer dated 01/12/96)
Sunday, December 1, 1996
Tuesday, November 12, 1996
COMMUNAL BIAS IN THE POLICE
SECTARIAN VIRUS IN THE POLICE FORCE
The Union Home Minister, Mr. Indrajit Gupta, seems to have a penchant for expressing some bitter truths frankly. A couple of months ago, he expressed his helplessness in breaking the politics-crime nexus which, according to him, had struck deep roots in the country. More recently, while addressing the contingent of IPS probationers at the National Police Academy, Hyderabad, he expressed distress at the fact that the UP police had been affected by the forces of casteism and communalism.
An observation of this type should have raised many eyebrows. It was made by no less a person than the Union Home Minister whose Ministry deals with police problems. Besides, the statement goes against the very fundamentals of the police philosophy, which require the force to function impartially as an agent of law, unaffected by caste or communal considerations. The statement, however, did not create even a ripple of excitement in political, academic, or in police circles. This happened probably because nobody found anything new or surprising in what Mr. Gupta said.
Members of the minority communities or those belonging to lower castes have often perceived the police as a biased and partisan agency. A number of judicial enquiry commissions set up to enquire into communal and caste riots have commented adversely on the police for showing discrimination in the handling of such disturbances. The National Police Commission in its sixth report referred to the stringent criticism received by it from many responsible quarters that the police often did not act impartially and objectively. To some extent, the increasing perception of the police force as communal or casteist is a reflection of the sharpening of the divide amongst the communities on communal or caste
lines. Earlier, it was hoped that the virus of communalism and casteism dividing the Indian society would meet its eventual end once the liberal institutions and value systems took roots. This has not happened. Religion and caste have, in fact, emerged as stronger dividing forces. The religious and caste affiliations and feelings existing in our traditional society have been manipulated and exploited by politicians to create, retain and expand their vote banks.
This has resulted in further strengthening the communal and casteist feelings amongst vast sections of the community. Policing such an environment becomes a difficult task as it requires the police to remain unaffected by the forces which are influencing the attitudes, values and behaviour of large sections of population with whom they interact closely in their day-to-day work. A sizeable chunk of constabulary comes from the traditionally conservative families and bring with them a set of ‘muffasil’ values and attitudes at the time of joining the police force.
Shedding off some of the accumulated prejudices becomes a difficult task when the same set of prejudices is entrenching its stranglehold on other segments of population. The problem of police being affected by communalism or casteism is linked not only to the problem of increasing hold of communal forces over others in society, but also to that of gradual and continuous erosion of the authority of police as an agency of law which has occurred in this country over a period of time. The philosophy of police neutrality is embedded in the concept of the rule of law. That concept has not merely been devalued but, in fact, subverted to serve the interests of powerful people and sections of society.
This has been done by manipulating the police and not letting it function as an agency of law. One of the methods used for this purpose is to post such officers in important or sensitive districts as are always willing to toe the line. Appointments and postings of officers in States like UP are governed not by their secular credentials or professionalism but by their caste or religious affiliations and by their pliability to accept and implement all types of orders- right or wrong.
The police being the, most visible arm of the State, loss of confidence on the part of members of any community in its ability, resulting from its partisan behaviour, leads to the erosion of faith in the credentials of the States. The problem to which the Union Home Minister referred has thus serious implications not merely for the police department but for the entire society. The problem is too important to be neglected and deserves to be tackled in right earnest.
One of the remedial measures suggested by some is to increase the representation from minority communities and Scheduled Castes in the police. At present, the police forces in all States and Union territories have a total strength of 13,51,047, out of which as many as 1,66,779 (12.3 per cent) belong to Scheduled Castes and 78,799 (5.8 per cent) are Muslims. It is felt by some that this representation is rather low and needs to be increased. While people from all communities should be recruited to give a composite character to the police force,
this should not be done by diluting the standards of recruitment. It is unfortunate that deliberate attempts were made recently in some States, like UP during Mr. Mulayam Singh’s Chief Ministership, to raise new police forces under special legislative enactments, which permitted dilution of standards so that people belonging to a certain community could be recruited in large numbers. This is the surest way to spread communal or caste virus. If the spread of the virus of communalism in the police forces has to be checked the standards of
recruitment must be high vigorously enforced.
A lasting solution of the problem, however, would require establishment of arrangements through which the police administration can be insulated against undesirable and illegitimate interferences. As long as appointments, postings, transfers and promotions are guided by communal and caste considerations, it will not be possible to stop the spread of communal virus in the force. A clean force would require a clean administration.
(Published in the Hindustan Times dated 12.11.96)
The Union Home Minister, Mr. Indrajit Gupta, seems to have a penchant for expressing some bitter truths frankly. A couple of months ago, he expressed his helplessness in breaking the politics-crime nexus which, according to him, had struck deep roots in the country. More recently, while addressing the contingent of IPS probationers at the National Police Academy, Hyderabad, he expressed distress at the fact that the UP police had been affected by the forces of casteism and communalism.
An observation of this type should have raised many eyebrows. It was made by no less a person than the Union Home Minister whose Ministry deals with police problems. Besides, the statement goes against the very fundamentals of the police philosophy, which require the force to function impartially as an agent of law, unaffected by caste or communal considerations. The statement, however, did not create even a ripple of excitement in political, academic, or in police circles. This happened probably because nobody found anything new or surprising in what Mr. Gupta said.
Members of the minority communities or those belonging to lower castes have often perceived the police as a biased and partisan agency. A number of judicial enquiry commissions set up to enquire into communal and caste riots have commented adversely on the police for showing discrimination in the handling of such disturbances. The National Police Commission in its sixth report referred to the stringent criticism received by it from many responsible quarters that the police often did not act impartially and objectively. To some extent, the increasing perception of the police force as communal or casteist is a reflection of the sharpening of the divide amongst the communities on communal or caste
lines. Earlier, it was hoped that the virus of communalism and casteism dividing the Indian society would meet its eventual end once the liberal institutions and value systems took roots. This has not happened. Religion and caste have, in fact, emerged as stronger dividing forces. The religious and caste affiliations and feelings existing in our traditional society have been manipulated and exploited by politicians to create, retain and expand their vote banks.
This has resulted in further strengthening the communal and casteist feelings amongst vast sections of the community. Policing such an environment becomes a difficult task as it requires the police to remain unaffected by the forces which are influencing the attitudes, values and behaviour of large sections of population with whom they interact closely in their day-to-day work. A sizeable chunk of constabulary comes from the traditionally conservative families and bring with them a set of ‘muffasil’ values and attitudes at the time of joining the police force.
Shedding off some of the accumulated prejudices becomes a difficult task when the same set of prejudices is entrenching its stranglehold on other segments of population. The problem of police being affected by communalism or casteism is linked not only to the problem of increasing hold of communal forces over others in society, but also to that of gradual and continuous erosion of the authority of police as an agency of law which has occurred in this country over a period of time. The philosophy of police neutrality is embedded in the concept of the rule of law. That concept has not merely been devalued but, in fact, subverted to serve the interests of powerful people and sections of society.
This has been done by manipulating the police and not letting it function as an agency of law. One of the methods used for this purpose is to post such officers in important or sensitive districts as are always willing to toe the line. Appointments and postings of officers in States like UP are governed not by their secular credentials or professionalism but by their caste or religious affiliations and by their pliability to accept and implement all types of orders- right or wrong.
The police being the, most visible arm of the State, loss of confidence on the part of members of any community in its ability, resulting from its partisan behaviour, leads to the erosion of faith in the credentials of the States. The problem to which the Union Home Minister referred has thus serious implications not merely for the police department but for the entire society. The problem is too important to be neglected and deserves to be tackled in right earnest.
One of the remedial measures suggested by some is to increase the representation from minority communities and Scheduled Castes in the police. At present, the police forces in all States and Union territories have a total strength of 13,51,047, out of which as many as 1,66,779 (12.3 per cent) belong to Scheduled Castes and 78,799 (5.8 per cent) are Muslims. It is felt by some that this representation is rather low and needs to be increased. While people from all communities should be recruited to give a composite character to the police force,
this should not be done by diluting the standards of recruitment. It is unfortunate that deliberate attempts were made recently in some States, like UP during Mr. Mulayam Singh’s Chief Ministership, to raise new police forces under special legislative enactments, which permitted dilution of standards so that people belonging to a certain community could be recruited in large numbers. This is the surest way to spread communal or caste virus. If the spread of the virus of communalism in the police forces has to be checked the standards of
recruitment must be high vigorously enforced.
A lasting solution of the problem, however, would require establishment of arrangements through which the police administration can be insulated against undesirable and illegitimate interferences. As long as appointments, postings, transfers and promotions are guided by communal and caste considerations, it will not be possible to stop the spread of communal virus in the force. A clean force would require a clean administration.
(Published in the Hindustan Times dated 12.11.96)
Saturday, April 13, 1996
ROLE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN CONTROLLING CRIME
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND CRIME CONTROL
Crime in India has shown an increasing trend during the last few decades. The total IPC crime in the country, which was only 6.26 lakh in 1961, rose to 16.30 lakh. While the population of the country registered an increase of 101.90 per cent during this period, IPC crime increased by 160.3 per cent. Crime has thus been rising at a rate faster than that of the population growth.
What is more ominous is the trend of violent crime. The incidence of violent crime increased from 55,726 in 1961 to 2,32,554 in 1993, thus rising by 317.3 per cent during this period. The increase in crime has been accompanied by a gradual fall in the conviction rate. While in 1971, 62 per cent of the IPC cases ended in conviction, in 1993, it had fallen to 45.9 per cent.
Another disturbing trend is the increasing pendency of cases under trial. The total number of criminal cases pending in the magistrates and sessions courts in the country had gone up from 45.5 lakh in 1976 to 136.5 lakh in 1992-93. In addition, 3.04 lakh cases were pending in high courts as on December 31,1993.
The data thus reveals a rising trend in crime, more so in violent crime, a declining rate of convictions and an increasing pendency of cases under trial. This means that more and more people are committing crime and getting away with it. Cases are settled after a long time. Justice is being delayed and denied. Obviously, the criminal justice system has failed in achieving its objectives.
How has the Central Government responded to the problem of controlling crime? Controlling crime is, of course, not the direct responsibility of the Central Government, as the police and other agencies of the criminal justice system, like courts, prisons etc. are placed by Article 246 of the Constitution in the State List. The Central Government has very often taken refuge behind these provisions of the Constitution and tried to wash its hands off the responsibility in such matters.
This, however, is a very narrow and short-sighted approach. These are certain provisions in the Constitution itself, which suggest an important role for the Centre in strengthening and improving the criminal justice system. Some awareness of its role was shown by the Central government in the recent past when it organized a conference of the Chief Ministers on the administration of criminal justice on November 13, 1992. Some important problems relating to the administration of criminal justice at the district level, including that of criminalisation of politics, were discussed. However, like all such conferences, what started with a bang ended with whimper. The resolution passed by the conference remained unimplemented for the lack of follow-up action.
It is rather interesting to note that the inadequate concern shown by the Central Government towards the problem of controlling crime has not been repeated in the area of maintenance of law and order, even though ‘Public Order’ is the first item in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In fact, the brunt of major law and order disturbances, which have occurred in different States, has been borne by the Central paramilitary forces. The heavy dependence of the State governments of the Centre to maintain law and order is responsible for the huge expansion of the Central paramilitary forces. This has naturally led to tremendous increase in the Central expenditure on police.
Most of the expenditure by the Central Government is being incurred on the expansion and maintenance of the Central forces which, strictly speaking, are not doing a policing job, particularly insofar as crime control is concerned.
There has been considerable public criticism of the police performance in the country. This is as it should be. It is, however, necessary to remember that the police is only one part of the criminal justice system. The other very important part is constituted by the courts and their performance should be kept equally under constant public watch. The record of the courts in dealing with crime and criminals has not been very bright. The way the courts function is an important reason for the delay in disposal of criminal cases. If there can be a time limit for completion of investigation in law, there is no reason why similar time limit should not be prescribed for completing trial in criminal cases.
Here, the Centre cannot even take shelter behind the provisions of the Constitution for not taking initiatives. Criminal law and criminal procedure are items in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This is an area which cries for reforms. The police in this country are still being governed by the Police Act of 1861. In addition, some other major laws are outdated. The three major laws, i.e. the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act were enacted by the British during the second half of the last century. Out of these, the only Act which has been subjected to a thorough major review after Independence is the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other two laws, except for some minor amendments, have remained unchanged.
The Central Government has not evolved a coherent, well knit national policy to deal with crime and criminals. The working of the Central Government in these areas has been characterised by a narrow, fragmented and ad hoc approach. This becomes clear from the administrative set-up in the Centre itself.
The National Police Commission had recommended the establishment on statutory basis of a Criminal Justice Commission at the Centre which should have the authority and the requisite facilities to maintain a constant and comprehensive look at the entire system, to monitor its performance and suggest necessary corrective measures from time to time, keeping in view the overall objective of the system. The need to implement this recommendation of the National Police Commission can hardly be over-emphasised.
(Published in the Hindustan Times dated April 12, 1996)
Crime in India has shown an increasing trend during the last few decades. The total IPC crime in the country, which was only 6.26 lakh in 1961, rose to 16.30 lakh. While the population of the country registered an increase of 101.90 per cent during this period, IPC crime increased by 160.3 per cent. Crime has thus been rising at a rate faster than that of the population growth.
What is more ominous is the trend of violent crime. The incidence of violent crime increased from 55,726 in 1961 to 2,32,554 in 1993, thus rising by 317.3 per cent during this period. The increase in crime has been accompanied by a gradual fall in the conviction rate. While in 1971, 62 per cent of the IPC cases ended in conviction, in 1993, it had fallen to 45.9 per cent.
Another disturbing trend is the increasing pendency of cases under trial. The total number of criminal cases pending in the magistrates and sessions courts in the country had gone up from 45.5 lakh in 1976 to 136.5 lakh in 1992-93. In addition, 3.04 lakh cases were pending in high courts as on December 31,1993.
The data thus reveals a rising trend in crime, more so in violent crime, a declining rate of convictions and an increasing pendency of cases under trial. This means that more and more people are committing crime and getting away with it. Cases are settled after a long time. Justice is being delayed and denied. Obviously, the criminal justice system has failed in achieving its objectives.
How has the Central Government responded to the problem of controlling crime? Controlling crime is, of course, not the direct responsibility of the Central Government, as the police and other agencies of the criminal justice system, like courts, prisons etc. are placed by Article 246 of the Constitution in the State List. The Central Government has very often taken refuge behind these provisions of the Constitution and tried to wash its hands off the responsibility in such matters.
This, however, is a very narrow and short-sighted approach. These are certain provisions in the Constitution itself, which suggest an important role for the Centre in strengthening and improving the criminal justice system. Some awareness of its role was shown by the Central government in the recent past when it organized a conference of the Chief Ministers on the administration of criminal justice on November 13, 1992. Some important problems relating to the administration of criminal justice at the district level, including that of criminalisation of politics, were discussed. However, like all such conferences, what started with a bang ended with whimper. The resolution passed by the conference remained unimplemented for the lack of follow-up action.
It is rather interesting to note that the inadequate concern shown by the Central Government towards the problem of controlling crime has not been repeated in the area of maintenance of law and order, even though ‘Public Order’ is the first item in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In fact, the brunt of major law and order disturbances, which have occurred in different States, has been borne by the Central paramilitary forces. The heavy dependence of the State governments of the Centre to maintain law and order is responsible for the huge expansion of the Central paramilitary forces. This has naturally led to tremendous increase in the Central expenditure on police.
Most of the expenditure by the Central Government is being incurred on the expansion and maintenance of the Central forces which, strictly speaking, are not doing a policing job, particularly insofar as crime control is concerned.
There has been considerable public criticism of the police performance in the country. This is as it should be. It is, however, necessary to remember that the police is only one part of the criminal justice system. The other very important part is constituted by the courts and their performance should be kept equally under constant public watch. The record of the courts in dealing with crime and criminals has not been very bright. The way the courts function is an important reason for the delay in disposal of criminal cases. If there can be a time limit for completion of investigation in law, there is no reason why similar time limit should not be prescribed for completing trial in criminal cases.
Here, the Centre cannot even take shelter behind the provisions of the Constitution for not taking initiatives. Criminal law and criminal procedure are items in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This is an area which cries for reforms. The police in this country are still being governed by the Police Act of 1861. In addition, some other major laws are outdated. The three major laws, i.e. the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act were enacted by the British during the second half of the last century. Out of these, the only Act which has been subjected to a thorough major review after Independence is the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other two laws, except for some minor amendments, have remained unchanged.
The Central Government has not evolved a coherent, well knit national policy to deal with crime and criminals. The working of the Central Government in these areas has been characterised by a narrow, fragmented and ad hoc approach. This becomes clear from the administrative set-up in the Centre itself.
The National Police Commission had recommended the establishment on statutory basis of a Criminal Justice Commission at the Centre which should have the authority and the requisite facilities to maintain a constant and comprehensive look at the entire system, to monitor its performance and suggest necessary corrective measures from time to time, keeping in view the overall objective of the system. The need to implement this recommendation of the National Police Commission can hardly be over-emphasised.
(Published in the Hindustan Times dated April 12, 1996)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)