THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND POLICE REFORMS
While addressing the heads of police forces in the country in a meeting held in New Delhi some months ago, Mr. L.K.Advani, the Union Home Minister, mentioned that suraksha (security) of the common man was as vital as his shiksha (education) and swastha (health). Mr. Advani in fact echoed what the United Nations recognised long ago. The UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in 1995 said: “To feel safe from crime is as important to a person as access to food, shelter, education and health.”
Providing a sense of security to the common man is dependent on the establishment of a police force, which is efficient, honest and professional to the core. Do we have such a police force? Not if we go by the findings of the various commissions and committees, the complaints received by the human rights commissions, the stories reported by the press and the experiences of the common people on the streets. In fact, the Union Home Secretary, Mr. Kamal Pande told a group of probationary Indian Police Service officers during the last passing out parade held in the National Police Academy, Hyderabad how rotten the police system had become. He is reported to have told the trainees that while the law abiding public suspect the police, those who operate on the wrong side of the law do not fear them.
The question that should have been put to the Union Home Secretary is- what has the central government done to improve the police system? They have of course appointed commissions and committees to study the police problems. The appointment of the Working Group on Police by the Administrative Reforms Commission in 1966 was the first sign of central government’s interest in the subject. This was followed by the setting up of the Gore Committee on Police Training in 1971. Then came the most significant initiative – the appointment of the first National Police Commission (NPC) after Independence. Recently, the central government again became active. They first set up the Ribeiro Committee on Police Reforms in 1998 on the directions of the Supreme Court and last year sprang a surprise by the sudden announcement about setting up another committee- the Padmanabhai Committee on Police Reforms.
Despite the examination of the subject by so many expert bodies, the quality of policing in the country has continued to deteriorate. Reason- no government, central or state has ever shown interest in implementing the important recommendations made by experts.
Then why this pretence of appointing committees and commissions and wasting
public money? The Central Government, for instance, must answer many questions about the Padmanabhai Committee. Why was this Committee appointed when the major recommendations of the NPC still remained unimplemented. Even if the problems of the police needed a fresh look, why was the composition of the Committee confined to police officers only (it consisted of four police officers – two serving and two retired- functioning under a retired bureaucrat)? Why was nobody from outside the police included in the Committee? Anyone who has even glanced through the report realises how the findings and recommendations of the Committee have been shaped by the composition of the Committee
The report was submitted by the Committee to the central government in October 2000. Till now, the report has not been released to the public. There was no consultation with public or civil society organisations when the Committee was appointed and it is not considered necessary to have public debate on the report on a subject, which actually concerns the community. While the governments and people in other countries have realised that policing is too serious and important a business to be left to policemen alone, we have yet to do so. We have yet to learn from two important developments in policing that have occurred during the last few decades in some western countries- community policing and civic oversight of policing.
The need for police reforms at the state level has never been adequately recognised by the central government. A substantial part of the Central Government’s expenditure on policing is actually incurred on the growth and upkeep of five central para-military forces, like the BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF and Assam Rifles, which do not really do policing in a strictly traditional sense of the term. The Ministry of Home Affairs Demand For Grants for the year 1999-2000 showed that the amount voted for the Police was about Rs. 690 crores, out of which the voted estimate of expenditure on these five organizations alone was Rs. 478 crores. Thus the remaining 30% of the Central government’s budget was meant for the maintenance of the police forces of the union territories, including the Delhi Police and also for the modernisation of the State Police forces.
Most State Governments have neglected the development of their police forces and have instead preferred to depend heavily on the central para-military assistance to meet urgent and emergent law and order needs. This heavy dependence on the central assistance has been the result as well as the cause of comparatively poor development of the state police forces. The state governments requisition central assistance on the ground that their own police forces lack adequate strength, arms, equipment and training to deal with tough situations effectively. The availability of central assistance in turn allows the state governments to keep on neglecting the need to strengthen and modernise their police forces.
Policing is not the direct responsibility of the central government as the Police & Public Order are placed by Article 246 of the Constitution in the State List. The Central Government has often taken refuge behind these provisions of the Constitution and washed its hands of the entire responsibility of initiating action to introduce reforms in the police. This, however, is a very narrow and short- sighted approach.
The central government has always had the option of implementing the important recommendations of the NPC by introducing the model Police Bill drafted by the NPC in the Union Territories. If it had done so, it would have acquired the moral authority to ask the state governments to follow suit. It never did that and thus failed to convince the state governments about its genuineness in implementing the NPC’s recommendations.
The central government can and should take the lead in introducing reforms in the police. It has the leverage to encourage State Governments to reform their police forces by setting norms and standards, issuing policy directions, making the release of central grants dependent on police performance and behaviour etc. What is required is the genuine interest and will to bring about police reforms in the country.
The police in this country are about two million strong. This huge reservoir of manpower can do enormous good to society, provided they are utilised to serve the community and not as an instrument to serve the interests of the elite class and people in positions of power. The need for police reforms is self evident and urgent. It is in fact essential for the establishment of good governance and achievement of economic progress. It is time the central as well as the state governments realised this.
(Published with minor amendments in the Statesman dated 17. 01. 2001)
