WHAT R.K. SHARMA TELLS US?
The news of the alleged involvement of R.K. Sharma, a senior IPS officer of Haryana cadre, in the murder of Shivani Bhatnagar makes tragic reading. It is symptomatic of an unfortunate trend: the increasing criminalisation of the police force. Their delinquency is now no longer confined to mere violations of the disciplinary code, but extends to major offences. Equally disturbing is the involvement of senior officers in such crimes.
Look at the evidence: On January 1, 1998, the UP government identified 850 policemen having an alleged nexus with criminals. The list included two officers of the rank of additional director general of police, one of whom later became director general of police. In Calcutta, a police commissioner had maintained close links with the underworld. In Haryana, an officer of the rank of director general of police was caught accepting a bribe and another was involved in getting a person in custody killed. A third one was accused of molesting a teenaged girl, who subsequently committed suicide.
That’s not all. An officer of IGP rank was found to be involved in running a smuggling operation before he was caught by the Customs more than a year ago. Two officers of the rank of SP of the Haryana cadre were sentenced to imprisonment for filing false affidavits before the Supreme Court. In Karnataka, senior IPS officers were faced with murder charges. In Assam, two senior officers were involved in cases of rape. A couple of years ago, an officer of the rank of DIG in Rajasthan was allegedly involved in raping his orderly’s wife. He has been absconding for the last many years. In Delhi, a senior IPS officer of the UT cadre of the rank of DGP had grabbed land illegally. Some time ago, in Bihar, an IPS officer of the rank of SP was reportedly making a fast buck dealing in stolen cars. The list is endless.
Police officials resent being singled out for blame, given the fact that standards of public morality had plummeted in every department of the government and administration. But this argument overlooks the tremendous powers wielded by the police. When a policeman commits a crime, he does not merely violate a law; he violates a fiduciary relationship, one based on public trust. Of course, the rising incidence of crimes committed by police personnel is closely linked with the growing criminalisation of politics. As the nexus between the criminal and politician gets stronger, it is able to subvert the loyalty of government functionaries, including the police, at various levels. Criminalisation of politics has led to gradually undermining the authority of the police leadership and, consequently, the discipline of the force. Being an hierarchical organisation, if the leadership is undermined- either because of illegitimate interference from outside or because of its own weaknesses- the entire force becomes vulnerable, with the functionaries at different levels looking elsewhere for protection.
Another reason for the increasing incidence of criminality among policemen is the decline in the quality of persons being recruited. There has been a huge and rapid expansion of the force during the last few years and a noticeable decline in recruitment standards, with corruption, caste and communal considerations vitiating the selection process. Besides preventing the entry of the wrong type of people into the force, there must be regular screening to weed out undesirable elements at periodic intervals. This is necessary because the ‘biggest victim of the crooked cop is the honest cop.’
There is another factor to be considered as well. The strong camaraderie in the force subverts attempts by ‘outsiders’ to punish them. It is particularly difficult to take action against officers involved in wrongdoing. Not only does the department feel shy of taking action against senior officers, the fact that the wrongdoer has access to important bureaucrats and politicians makes bringing them to book all the more difficult.
Training is often cited as a panacea for all the ills. While it may not succeed in curbing the criminal tendencies of the wrongdoers, it can help in creating a culture where such elements are identified and removed. What is required is to establish a culture within the police force that promotes openness and ensures that criminal tendencies are regarded not just as unacceptable, but fully deserving of swift punishment.
(Article published in the Indian Express dated 25/09/2002)
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Monday, September 23, 2002
POLICE FATALITIES
OCTOBER 21- THE POLICE MEMORIAL DAY
The police in this country are often criticised, and rightly so, for all the wrongs the police personnel often do. However, a complaint very often voiced by the police officers is that while the individual failures get comprehensive publicity in the media, the organisation's achievements are invariably neglected. The good, which the force does dies and the evil which an individual policeman does lives for ever producing a cumulative reaction of hostility and opposition on the part of the public.
There can be no doubt that the police force has done considerably good work on different occasions and in different parts of the country. Despite its bad and unsavoury record in many fields, the police in this country can legitimately claim credit for standing successfully against the forces of disorder. There have been very few areas in the country, which have not witnessed large-scale law and order disturbances on some occasion or the other. Every decade has had its share of violence, though the last was the worst in terms of challenges posed to the national security by terrorist violence supported and fuelled from across the border.
The policemen have often worked under very difficult circumstances and tried to control crime and maintain internal security against all odds. While doing so, they have also made many sacrifices, including the supreme sacrifice of losing their lives. A large number of police personnel have been killed in line of duty.
According to data compiled by the Intelligence Bureau, policing took a toll of as many as 21,428 lives of police personnel during the period 1961-62 to 1999-2000. During the last decade, the toll became very heavy. During a nine-year period i.e. 1991-92 to 1999-2000, as many as 9389 police personnel died in line of duty, an average of more than 1043 lives per year.
This is a very heavy toll. No police force anywhere else in the world has paid such heavy price. Even in the United States of America, where the violence levels during police-citizen encounters are quite high, the number of police casualties in line of duty has not been that high. The total number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty during the seventies in that country was 1,143 officers. The number slain during the eighties was only 801, but the number during the second half of the last decade (1996-2000) was 845. Ireland is reported to have been one of the most violent spots in Europe during the last few decades. However, only 302 Royal Armed Constabulary officers and men lost their lives over the past 30 years. In Britain, till the eighties, only 220 police officers are reported to have been killed in line of duty since the Metropolitan Police Force was founded in 1829.
Unfortunately, the sacrifices made by police personnel while performing their duty have not received adequate recognition in this country. This has happened primarily because the image of the police has not been good. The public do not make a distinction between the police force and a policeman. A single bad incident of misuse of police power by an individual policeman works like a bad coin. It drives all the good work of the organisation out of circulation.
The administrative response to the unfortunate misery resulting from a policeman’s death in the form of pensionery benefits, ex-gratia grants, financial help to the bereaved family has shown improvement during the last few years. However, this is not enough. The societal reaction needs to be more sensitive, considerate and understanding of the role of policeman in society and conditions under which that role is being performed. We have yet to give the policeman a status befitting his role in society. The poor image leads to a low status and the low status in turn perpetuates that image. The vicious circle keeps on widening the existing chasm between the police and the community.
To some extent, the police department is also responsible for not giving wide publicity to the sacrifices, which the police personnel are making in the line of duty. A routine, formal and cursory recognition of these sacrifices on October 21, which is observed as the Police Memorial Day, is not enough. October 21 should not be regarded merely as an occasion for laying down wreaths and doing ceremonial parades in police lines. The ceremony must also come out of the police lines and become an occasion for remembrance by others in the society.
Though a very large number of police personnel are losing their lives while dealing with terrorists/ extremists, other police duties, like investigating crimes, attempting arrests, responding to distress calls, escorting accused, attempting to stop suspicious vehicles etc. also take a toll of police lives. In other countries, if a policeman is killed in such circumstances, it becomes a top priority of the police department to catch the culprits at any cost. That type of reaction is generally not seen from the police departments in this country. In January this year, the media while reporting the murder of Sub-Inspector V.K. Yadav of Delhi Police, who was killed when he tried to arrest a criminal, came out with information about past cases where Delhi policemen had been killed while on duty and the killers had remained at large.
The death of a policeman at the hands of a criminal is much more than the sum of resources invested in his recruitment, training and maintenance. A policeman is a symbol of law and its authority and when he dies at the hands of a ruffian, a part of our system of law, as somebody has rightly said, dies with him.
Some element of professional risk is involved in a police job and has to be accepted. However, the country can not afford to keep on losing so many of its policemen every year. It is necessary to increase the self-protection awareness and ability of policemen through improved training and better equipment to enable them to deal with hazardous situations, without incurring unnecessary losses.
The police in this country are often criticised, and rightly so, for all the wrongs the police personnel often do. However, a complaint very often voiced by the police officers is that while the individual failures get comprehensive publicity in the media, the organisation's achievements are invariably neglected. The good, which the force does dies and the evil which an individual policeman does lives for ever producing a cumulative reaction of hostility and opposition on the part of the public.
There can be no doubt that the police force has done considerably good work on different occasions and in different parts of the country. Despite its bad and unsavoury record in many fields, the police in this country can legitimately claim credit for standing successfully against the forces of disorder. There have been very few areas in the country, which have not witnessed large-scale law and order disturbances on some occasion or the other. Every decade has had its share of violence, though the last was the worst in terms of challenges posed to the national security by terrorist violence supported and fuelled from across the border.
The policemen have often worked under very difficult circumstances and tried to control crime and maintain internal security against all odds. While doing so, they have also made many sacrifices, including the supreme sacrifice of losing their lives. A large number of police personnel have been killed in line of duty.
According to data compiled by the Intelligence Bureau, policing took a toll of as many as 21,428 lives of police personnel during the period 1961-62 to 1999-2000. During the last decade, the toll became very heavy. During a nine-year period i.e. 1991-92 to 1999-2000, as many as 9389 police personnel died in line of duty, an average of more than 1043 lives per year.
This is a very heavy toll. No police force anywhere else in the world has paid such heavy price. Even in the United States of America, where the violence levels during police-citizen encounters are quite high, the number of police casualties in line of duty has not been that high. The total number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty during the seventies in that country was 1,143 officers. The number slain during the eighties was only 801, but the number during the second half of the last decade (1996-2000) was 845. Ireland is reported to have been one of the most violent spots in Europe during the last few decades. However, only 302 Royal Armed Constabulary officers and men lost their lives over the past 30 years. In Britain, till the eighties, only 220 police officers are reported to have been killed in line of duty since the Metropolitan Police Force was founded in 1829.
Unfortunately, the sacrifices made by police personnel while performing their duty have not received adequate recognition in this country. This has happened primarily because the image of the police has not been good. The public do not make a distinction between the police force and a policeman. A single bad incident of misuse of police power by an individual policeman works like a bad coin. It drives all the good work of the organisation out of circulation.
The administrative response to the unfortunate misery resulting from a policeman’s death in the form of pensionery benefits, ex-gratia grants, financial help to the bereaved family has shown improvement during the last few years. However, this is not enough. The societal reaction needs to be more sensitive, considerate and understanding of the role of policeman in society and conditions under which that role is being performed. We have yet to give the policeman a status befitting his role in society. The poor image leads to a low status and the low status in turn perpetuates that image. The vicious circle keeps on widening the existing chasm between the police and the community.
To some extent, the police department is also responsible for not giving wide publicity to the sacrifices, which the police personnel are making in the line of duty. A routine, formal and cursory recognition of these sacrifices on October 21, which is observed as the Police Memorial Day, is not enough. October 21 should not be regarded merely as an occasion for laying down wreaths and doing ceremonial parades in police lines. The ceremony must also come out of the police lines and become an occasion for remembrance by others in the society.
Though a very large number of police personnel are losing their lives while dealing with terrorists/ extremists, other police duties, like investigating crimes, attempting arrests, responding to distress calls, escorting accused, attempting to stop suspicious vehicles etc. also take a toll of police lives. In other countries, if a policeman is killed in such circumstances, it becomes a top priority of the police department to catch the culprits at any cost. That type of reaction is generally not seen from the police departments in this country. In January this year, the media while reporting the murder of Sub-Inspector V.K. Yadav of Delhi Police, who was killed when he tried to arrest a criminal, came out with information about past cases where Delhi policemen had been killed while on duty and the killers had remained at large.
The death of a policeman at the hands of a criminal is much more than the sum of resources invested in his recruitment, training and maintenance. A policeman is a symbol of law and its authority and when he dies at the hands of a ruffian, a part of our system of law, as somebody has rightly said, dies with him.
Some element of professional risk is involved in a police job and has to be accepted. However, the country can not afford to keep on losing so many of its policemen every year. It is necessary to increase the self-protection awareness and ability of policemen through improved training and better equipment to enable them to deal with hazardous situations, without incurring unnecessary losses.
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
CAN A LAW BE MORE FAKE THAN THIS?
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2002
It has been claimed that the Representation of The People (Amendment) Bill, 2002 (the Bill), which has been drafted by the Government with such unseemly haste, is an attempt to settle the long-standing issue of debarring the criminals from entering into our legislatures. The Government should, however, know that in a democratic society, no issue, particularly the one that is of such great public import as the present one, can ever be treated as settled unless it is settled right and unless it is done in consultation with the public.
For the last so many years, the citizens have been demanding amendments in law to debar the entry of criminals into our legislatures. The existing provisions in the Representation of the Principal Act, 1951 (the principal Act) disqualify a person from gaining entry into the legislatures only if he is convicted of an offence specified in Section 8 or found guilty of a corrupt practice. The existing law has failed to prevent entry of criminals, which is obvious from the fact that so many of them have become “disciplined members” of political parties and have won elections to “serve the public”. The fault lies not only with the election laws but with the way our criminal justice system has been functioning. Besides being slow, cumbersome and dilatory, the system has failed to bring the rich and powerful people to justice. It is not the rule of law but the rule of power and politics that has prevailed.
The Supreme Court’s order of May 2, implemented through the Election Commission’s guidelines of June 28, does not deal with the disqualification issue. All it says is that a citizen has a right to know a candidate’s criminal background, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications so that he can make an informed choice before casting his vote. The idea of disclosing information appears to have unnerved the politicians so greatly that they immediately closed ranks and urged its rejection. The Bill inserts a new clause in the principal Act (Section 33 A), which says that a candidate is required to furnish information only under the Act and the rules and no decree, order or direction of any court or Election Commission in this respect needs to be complied with.
The Bill makes a concession and requires a candidate to inform by filing an affidavit along with his nomination papers if he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for more than two years in a pending case where the charge has been framed by a competent court. While the Amendment Bill provides for a penalty in the form of imprisonment for filing a false affidavit, this has not been included separately and specifically as a “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of the principal Act.
The Bill indicates that the politicians are more afraid of declaring their assets and liabilities and their criminal background than being charged in a court of law with having committed heinous offences. They are fully aware that the way our police and courts function, it takes years before charges are framed by courts in criminal proceedings, if at all the cases against politicians reach that stage. For a criminal case against a politician to reach the court, it is necessary to have a police force, which is insulated from illegitimate political control and pressures. Do we have such a police force? One need not go to Gujarat to answer NO. Thus presently, it will be one of the rarest of rare cases when a politician still holding some position of power is taken in a criminal proceeding to a stage where he has to face charges framed by a court of law not once but twice.
Declaration of assets, however, is a different ball game altogether, raising questions of how he has acquired them. A recent study done by a research organisation of Delhi has shown that a person to win elections has to be ‘superrich.’ Probably another study can be done by the same organisation to find if winning elections is the major way to become superrich.
Though a citizen’s right to have full information about the candidates’ background is not being recognised by law, the Bill makes a fraudulent attempt to convey that its purpose is to debar criminals from entering into legislatures. It adds Section 8B to the principal Act, which would have the effect of disqualifying a person against whom (i) charges have been framed by a competent court (ii) in two separate criminal proceedings, showing his involvement (iii) in “heinous offences” and this should have been done at least (iv) six months prior to the date of filing nomination papers. There are some peculiar features of this amendment, which need to be noted. One, the person to be disqualified must be involved in two separate criminal proceedings. One is not enough. If a person is charged by a court with having committed “heinous offences” in only one criminal proceeding, he will not be disqualified. There is also a proviso to this Section, which says that any criminal proceeding which is stayed will not be taken into account. If the concerned person succeeds in getting one of the criminal proceedings stayed, he will not be disqualified. Two, the offence must be heinous; an ordinary offence will not do. In other words, besides being a recidivist, he must belong to the hardcore category of criminals. Three, the “heinous offences”, as defined in the Bill, includes waging or attempting or abetting waging of war against the Government of India, murder, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, or for ransom, rape, custodial rape, dacoity, drug peddling and a few specified offences under POTA. The person concerned can jolly well keep on committing other offences under IPC, like robbery, arson, riots, grievous hurt, extortion etc or under other local and special laws, like possessing or manufacturing arms and explosives, trafficking in women, illicit bootlegging, smuggling or amassing assets disproportionate to his income through corrupt means etc. He can rest assured that he will not be disqualified under this Bill.
Can any piece of legislation be more fake than this? But then, if it were not for such absurd attempts of the government to put wool over our eyes, we would have nothing left to laugh at.
(Original version of article published in the Indian Express dated 21.08.2002)
It has been claimed that the Representation of The People (Amendment) Bill, 2002 (the Bill), which has been drafted by the Government with such unseemly haste, is an attempt to settle the long-standing issue of debarring the criminals from entering into our legislatures. The Government should, however, know that in a democratic society, no issue, particularly the one that is of such great public import as the present one, can ever be treated as settled unless it is settled right and unless it is done in consultation with the public.
For the last so many years, the citizens have been demanding amendments in law to debar the entry of criminals into our legislatures. The existing provisions in the Representation of the Principal Act, 1951 (the principal Act) disqualify a person from gaining entry into the legislatures only if he is convicted of an offence specified in Section 8 or found guilty of a corrupt practice. The existing law has failed to prevent entry of criminals, which is obvious from the fact that so many of them have become “disciplined members” of political parties and have won elections to “serve the public”. The fault lies not only with the election laws but with the way our criminal justice system has been functioning. Besides being slow, cumbersome and dilatory, the system has failed to bring the rich and powerful people to justice. It is not the rule of law but the rule of power and politics that has prevailed.
The Supreme Court’s order of May 2, implemented through the Election Commission’s guidelines of June 28, does not deal with the disqualification issue. All it says is that a citizen has a right to know a candidate’s criminal background, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications so that he can make an informed choice before casting his vote. The idea of disclosing information appears to have unnerved the politicians so greatly that they immediately closed ranks and urged its rejection. The Bill inserts a new clause in the principal Act (Section 33 A), which says that a candidate is required to furnish information only under the Act and the rules and no decree, order or direction of any court or Election Commission in this respect needs to be complied with.
The Bill makes a concession and requires a candidate to inform by filing an affidavit along with his nomination papers if he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for more than two years in a pending case where the charge has been framed by a competent court. While the Amendment Bill provides for a penalty in the form of imprisonment for filing a false affidavit, this has not been included separately and specifically as a “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of the principal Act.
The Bill indicates that the politicians are more afraid of declaring their assets and liabilities and their criminal background than being charged in a court of law with having committed heinous offences. They are fully aware that the way our police and courts function, it takes years before charges are framed by courts in criminal proceedings, if at all the cases against politicians reach that stage. For a criminal case against a politician to reach the court, it is necessary to have a police force, which is insulated from illegitimate political control and pressures. Do we have such a police force? One need not go to Gujarat to answer NO. Thus presently, it will be one of the rarest of rare cases when a politician still holding some position of power is taken in a criminal proceeding to a stage where he has to face charges framed by a court of law not once but twice.
Declaration of assets, however, is a different ball game altogether, raising questions of how he has acquired them. A recent study done by a research organisation of Delhi has shown that a person to win elections has to be ‘superrich.’ Probably another study can be done by the same organisation to find if winning elections is the major way to become superrich.
Though a citizen’s right to have full information about the candidates’ background is not being recognised by law, the Bill makes a fraudulent attempt to convey that its purpose is to debar criminals from entering into legislatures. It adds Section 8B to the principal Act, which would have the effect of disqualifying a person against whom (i) charges have been framed by a competent court (ii) in two separate criminal proceedings, showing his involvement (iii) in “heinous offences” and this should have been done at least (iv) six months prior to the date of filing nomination papers. There are some peculiar features of this amendment, which need to be noted. One, the person to be disqualified must be involved in two separate criminal proceedings. One is not enough. If a person is charged by a court with having committed “heinous offences” in only one criminal proceeding, he will not be disqualified. There is also a proviso to this Section, which says that any criminal proceeding which is stayed will not be taken into account. If the concerned person succeeds in getting one of the criminal proceedings stayed, he will not be disqualified. Two, the offence must be heinous; an ordinary offence will not do. In other words, besides being a recidivist, he must belong to the hardcore category of criminals. Three, the “heinous offences”, as defined in the Bill, includes waging or attempting or abetting waging of war against the Government of India, murder, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, or for ransom, rape, custodial rape, dacoity, drug peddling and a few specified offences under POTA. The person concerned can jolly well keep on committing other offences under IPC, like robbery, arson, riots, grievous hurt, extortion etc or under other local and special laws, like possessing or manufacturing arms and explosives, trafficking in women, illicit bootlegging, smuggling or amassing assets disproportionate to his income through corrupt means etc. He can rest assured that he will not be disqualified under this Bill.
Can any piece of legislation be more fake than this? But then, if it were not for such absurd attempts of the government to put wool over our eyes, we would have nothing left to laugh at.
(Original version of article published in the Indian Express dated 21.08.2002)
Monday, June 3, 2002
MURDER OF STEPHEN LAWRENCE
MURDER OF STEPHEN LAWRENCE IN LONDON-
CAN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE POLICE IN GUJARAT LEARN SOME LESSONS?
Stephens Lawrence was a bright 18-year-old young man. On April 22, 1993 he was waiting at a bus stand at 10.30 PM in south-east London to go home. Suddenly, a group of about five to six youngsters came across the street, shouting “what, what nigger”, attacked and stabbed him to death
The attack was completely unprovoked. Stephen was killed just because he was black. His murderers were white.
The Metropolitan Police Service, London conducted investigations in two phases.
Names of five white young delinquents came repeatedly to the notice of the police as prime suspects, including specific information of their involvement in murder. The police, however, failed to unearth sufficient evidence to prosecute them.
What was remarkable about this case was the huge dignity, courage and determination with which Stephen’s parents pursued the case. Their campaign for justice finally bore fruit when the UK Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry on July 31, 1997 under the chairmanship of Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, former Judge of the High Court, to inquire into matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence, particularly to identify the lessons to be learnt for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes.
The report submitted by the Commission to the Government in February, 1999 was a scathing indictment of the working of the Metropolitan Police service. The Commission identified many deficiencies in investigation and came to the conclusion that “the investigation was marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers.” The Commission stated that institutional racism “exists both in the Metropolitan Police Service and in other Police Services and other institutions country wide.”
The Commission made 70 wide-ranging recommendations. They recommended that a Ministerial Priority be established for all police services to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority communities. The Freedom of Information Act should apply to all areas of policing, subject only to “substantial harm” test for withholding disclosure. Race Relations legislation should be extended to police and the chiefs should be made vicariously liable for acts and omissions of their officers relevant to that legislation. A comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes should be created by making it possible for public to report them 24 hours a day and at locations other than police stations. A model manual of investigation into racist incidents and reviews of such investigations, which should be open and thorough, should be prepared. Dedicated and trained Family Liaison Officers must exist at local level in every police force. Training must be given to police in racism awareness at local levels and local minority ethnic communities should be involved in such training. The police forces must reflect the cultural and ethnic mix of the communities they serve. Racist words and acts spoken or done by the police should lead to disciplinary proceedings. Serious complaints against the police should be independently investigated.
How did the police and the government in the UK react to the findings? The police admitted that their investigations were faulty. Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, made a public apology to the parents: “I, we in the Met, feel a sense of shame for the incompetence of that first investigation and of how the family were let down. We could and we should have done better.” The report was submitted to the Government on February 15, 1999 and it was discussed in the House of Commons on February 24, 1999. Sir Jack Straw, the British Home Secretary, announced: “ The House will share my sense of shame that the criminal justice system, and the Metropolitan Police in particular, failed the Lawrence family so badly.” The Government announced its acceptance of all the recommendations and formulated an action plan to implement them within a given timeframe
What does the above reveal? A murder takes place. A very reputed police force handles the investigation badly. The revelation gives a big jolt to the collective conscience of the community. No attempt is made to suppress facts. Public apologies for institutional failures are made by the head of the police force and also by the government. The existence of the problem is recognised. Solutions are suggested, accepted and implementation starts.
And how do we react? As per the official count, more than 800 people are butchered on the streets of Ahmedabad and other places in Gujarat. The police do not register FIRs in all cases. They act partisan and fail to deal with rioters effectively. There is in fact evidence of their complicity in various crimes. The Commissioner of Police explains the partisan attitudes of his men by referring to the fact that they are bound to be affected by the general sentiments of the community. The head of the government refers to Newton’s laws to explain the reaction of the majority community. No apologies are offered by the government or by the head of the police force for their failure to protect the lives and properties of citizens. The guilty police officers and others appear to be getting away scot free.
What happened in Gujarat has happened earlier, not only in that state but in other places too. It will keep on happening in future, till our governments and the police forces realise that good, open, decent and neutral policing is the key to our survival as a democratic society, which is so heterogeneous in its composition and culture.
(Original version of the article published in the Indian Express dated 03.06.2002).
CAN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE POLICE IN GUJARAT LEARN SOME LESSONS?
Stephens Lawrence was a bright 18-year-old young man. On April 22, 1993 he was waiting at a bus stand at 10.30 PM in south-east London to go home. Suddenly, a group of about five to six youngsters came across the street, shouting “what, what nigger”, attacked and stabbed him to death
The attack was completely unprovoked. Stephen was killed just because he was black. His murderers were white.
The Metropolitan Police Service, London conducted investigations in two phases.
Names of five white young delinquents came repeatedly to the notice of the police as prime suspects, including specific information of their involvement in murder. The police, however, failed to unearth sufficient evidence to prosecute them.
What was remarkable about this case was the huge dignity, courage and determination with which Stephen’s parents pursued the case. Their campaign for justice finally bore fruit when the UK Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry on July 31, 1997 under the chairmanship of Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, former Judge of the High Court, to inquire into matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence, particularly to identify the lessons to be learnt for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes.
The report submitted by the Commission to the Government in February, 1999 was a scathing indictment of the working of the Metropolitan Police service. The Commission identified many deficiencies in investigation and came to the conclusion that “the investigation was marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers.” The Commission stated that institutional racism “exists both in the Metropolitan Police Service and in other Police Services and other institutions country wide.”
The Commission made 70 wide-ranging recommendations. They recommended that a Ministerial Priority be established for all police services to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority communities. The Freedom of Information Act should apply to all areas of policing, subject only to “substantial harm” test for withholding disclosure. Race Relations legislation should be extended to police and the chiefs should be made vicariously liable for acts and omissions of their officers relevant to that legislation. A comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes should be created by making it possible for public to report them 24 hours a day and at locations other than police stations. A model manual of investigation into racist incidents and reviews of such investigations, which should be open and thorough, should be prepared. Dedicated and trained Family Liaison Officers must exist at local level in every police force. Training must be given to police in racism awareness at local levels and local minority ethnic communities should be involved in such training. The police forces must reflect the cultural and ethnic mix of the communities they serve. Racist words and acts spoken or done by the police should lead to disciplinary proceedings. Serious complaints against the police should be independently investigated.
How did the police and the government in the UK react to the findings? The police admitted that their investigations were faulty. Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, made a public apology to the parents: “I, we in the Met, feel a sense of shame for the incompetence of that first investigation and of how the family were let down. We could and we should have done better.” The report was submitted to the Government on February 15, 1999 and it was discussed in the House of Commons on February 24, 1999. Sir Jack Straw, the British Home Secretary, announced: “ The House will share my sense of shame that the criminal justice system, and the Metropolitan Police in particular, failed the Lawrence family so badly.” The Government announced its acceptance of all the recommendations and formulated an action plan to implement them within a given timeframe
What does the above reveal? A murder takes place. A very reputed police force handles the investigation badly. The revelation gives a big jolt to the collective conscience of the community. No attempt is made to suppress facts. Public apologies for institutional failures are made by the head of the police force and also by the government. The existence of the problem is recognised. Solutions are suggested, accepted and implementation starts.
And how do we react? As per the official count, more than 800 people are butchered on the streets of Ahmedabad and other places in Gujarat. The police do not register FIRs in all cases. They act partisan and fail to deal with rioters effectively. There is in fact evidence of their complicity in various crimes. The Commissioner of Police explains the partisan attitudes of his men by referring to the fact that they are bound to be affected by the general sentiments of the community. The head of the government refers to Newton’s laws to explain the reaction of the majority community. No apologies are offered by the government or by the head of the police force for their failure to protect the lives and properties of citizens. The guilty police officers and others appear to be getting away scot free.
What happened in Gujarat has happened earlier, not only in that state but in other places too. It will keep on happening in future, till our governments and the police forces realise that good, open, decent and neutral policing is the key to our survival as a democratic society, which is so heterogeneous in its composition and culture.
(Original version of the article published in the Indian Express dated 03.06.2002).
Friday, April 5, 2002
THE GUJARAT CARNAGE
IN SEARCH OF LOST CREDIBILITY
THE CARNAGE IN GUJARAT UNDERLINES THE NEED FOR POLICE REFORM
It is obvious there was an enormous failure of law enforcement machinery during the recent communal riots in Gujarat. The police failed to prevent damage to life and property and to provide a feeling of security to a large chunk of population. There are allegations that the police took sides and owed bias against members of the minority community.
This is not the first time this has happened. It happened in Nov 1984, when Sikhs were massacred and property worth crores was looted by rampaging mobs. There was the
Bhagalpur carnage in October 1989 when the Bihar Police allegedly joined the marauders in acts of arson, looting and butchering innocent persons from the minority community. The 1992-93 communal riots of Bombay brought in shocking incidents of police acting in a blatantly partisan manner against members of the minority community.
But the scale on which the state has lost its credibility this time is unprecedented. Once the state loses its credibility on such a mass scale, the feelings of insecurity amongst the minority community members give rise to faith in vigilantism, the tendency to congregate leading to ghettoisation with all the attendant evils, and militancy.
If there is one lesson that emerges clearly from what happened in Gujarat, it is this: the country cannot do any more without police reforms. The need for police reforms is too urgent to be delayed.
Police reforms must be pursued simultaneously in two directions. One, to establish statutory institutional arrangements to ensure that the superintendence of the state governments over their police forces is limited to guarantee that police performance is in strict accordance with law. To ensure the police function to establish rule of law, not rule of politics.
The other direction is to think in terms of strengthening policing under the existing set up. Besides improvements in recruitment, training and leadership, the condition of the constabulary needs immediate improvement. It is also necessary to set up statutory mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring and accountability of the police.
The most effective way of bringing about reforms in the police is by amending the Police Act. The relationship between the police, the government and the community is defined and regulated by the provisions laid down in Police Acts of different countries.
The Police Acts in other countries, unlike our Police Act of 1861, talk less of control and more of responsibility of the government to set up an efficient and effective system of policing. For instance, the main function of the Secretary of State in the U.K., according to Section 36 of the Police Act of 1996 of that country, is to exercise his powers “in such manner and to such extent as appears to him to be best calculated to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the policy.”
It is this statutory obligation, which makes the governments accountable for their failures in policing and forces them to take steps to monitor police performance and take concerted action to improve the police system. The overall responsibility of providing the community with an efficient and effective force remains with the political executive and yet functional autonomy remains with the head of police. There is a statutory public process for arriving at a careful demarcation of roles between the politician, the police and the community.
We need to go back to the recommendations made by the National Police Commission more than two decades ago. The central as well as the state governments in this country turned a deaf ear to those recommendations. It is time we learnt the lessons from Gujarat.
(Published in the Indian Express dated 05.04.02)
THE CARNAGE IN GUJARAT UNDERLINES THE NEED FOR POLICE REFORM
It is obvious there was an enormous failure of law enforcement machinery during the recent communal riots in Gujarat. The police failed to prevent damage to life and property and to provide a feeling of security to a large chunk of population. There are allegations that the police took sides and owed bias against members of the minority community.
This is not the first time this has happened. It happened in Nov 1984, when Sikhs were massacred and property worth crores was looted by rampaging mobs. There was the
Bhagalpur carnage in October 1989 when the Bihar Police allegedly joined the marauders in acts of arson, looting and butchering innocent persons from the minority community. The 1992-93 communal riots of Bombay brought in shocking incidents of police acting in a blatantly partisan manner against members of the minority community.
But the scale on which the state has lost its credibility this time is unprecedented. Once the state loses its credibility on such a mass scale, the feelings of insecurity amongst the minority community members give rise to faith in vigilantism, the tendency to congregate leading to ghettoisation with all the attendant evils, and militancy.
If there is one lesson that emerges clearly from what happened in Gujarat, it is this: the country cannot do any more without police reforms. The need for police reforms is too urgent to be delayed.
Police reforms must be pursued simultaneously in two directions. One, to establish statutory institutional arrangements to ensure that the superintendence of the state governments over their police forces is limited to guarantee that police performance is in strict accordance with law. To ensure the police function to establish rule of law, not rule of politics.
The other direction is to think in terms of strengthening policing under the existing set up. Besides improvements in recruitment, training and leadership, the condition of the constabulary needs immediate improvement. It is also necessary to set up statutory mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring and accountability of the police.
The most effective way of bringing about reforms in the police is by amending the Police Act. The relationship between the police, the government and the community is defined and regulated by the provisions laid down in Police Acts of different countries.
The Police Acts in other countries, unlike our Police Act of 1861, talk less of control and more of responsibility of the government to set up an efficient and effective system of policing. For instance, the main function of the Secretary of State in the U.K., according to Section 36 of the Police Act of 1996 of that country, is to exercise his powers “in such manner and to such extent as appears to him to be best calculated to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the policy.”
It is this statutory obligation, which makes the governments accountable for their failures in policing and forces them to take steps to monitor police performance and take concerted action to improve the police system. The overall responsibility of providing the community with an efficient and effective force remains with the political executive and yet functional autonomy remains with the head of police. There is a statutory public process for arriving at a careful demarcation of roles between the politician, the police and the community.
We need to go back to the recommendations made by the National Police Commission more than two decades ago. The central as well as the state governments in this country turned a deaf ear to those recommendations. It is time we learnt the lessons from Gujarat.
(Published in the Indian Express dated 05.04.02)
Friday, March 22, 2002
THREATS TO DEMOCRACY
MUGGING OF DEMOCRACY IN DEMOCRATIC WORLD
The enactment of emergency laws in some democratic countries after Septmeber 11, including our own POTA, brings to the fore certain important issues about the shrinkage of democratic space available to citizens in the democratic world.
A few decades ago, one felt quite optimistic about the consolidation of democratic polity and culture in different parts of the world. The end of the cold war blocks, collapse of certain totalitarian, military and repressive regimes and transition to democracies in some countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, the spread of human rights philosophy and institutions, the strengthening of the NGO movement and rapid growth of economy in some parts of the democratic world gave rise to confidence in the efficacy of democratic polity to solve peoples’ problems.
This optimism has been belied. Amongst the factors responsible for decline in public faith, two have been prominent. One has been the failure of the criminal justice system to control crime in a fair, just and effective manner and the other has been the failure on the economic front to alleviate poverty and inequalities.
There is an increasing feeling that the democratic system has failed to provide a feeling of security to the common man. The establishment of a feeling of security is extremely important because without it, one can not enjoy one’s basic needs and rights. As 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.”
A large number of people are of the view that democracy as a system of governance is weak and fails to control crime effectively. This feeling is supported by the fact that crime rate in almost all the democratic countries is definitely very high and is continuously rising. The State is failing to prevent crime and in some cases also to deal promptly, justly and effectively with those who commit it. When a large number of people, after committing crimes, are allowed to get away and justice is not meted out to victims, or criminal cases in courts of law are allowed to drag on for umpteen number of years, it results in eroding the faith and confidence of the public in the effectiveness not merely of the criminal justice administration but of the whole system of democratic polity and governance.
A democratic system is associated with the rule of law. Loss of faith is all the greater and widespread when the rule of law is not enforced. The way the system has worked in some countries, it has given rise to an impression in the public mind that some persons i.e. those who are rich, influential and politically powerful, commit crimes with impunity and manage to remain above the law of the land and it is only those who belong to the poor and underprivileged sections of society who are put behind the prison walls for committing even minor infractions of law. The system also shows bias and discrimination on the basis of race, colour and caste. This leads to alienation of a large section of people who are victims of discrimination and injustice. It fuels the seeds of discontent, protest and violence.
The citizens expect the State to provide them freedom from crime and violence. The State’s failure to do so gives rise to public fear of crime and criminals. Fear of crime feeds on itself and always grows at a rate faster than crime. It reduces the quality of life enjoyed by citizens in many ways. It is such public fear and perceptions, which provide a license to the police to ignore the law and deal with crime and criminals by using rough and illegal methods. Police deviance always increases whenever the fear of crime whips up the rhetoric of ‘war against crime and criminals’. Citizens’ vigilantism, which poses another threat to the rule of law, is also known to increase when citizens lose faith in the ability of the state to control crime. Public vigilantism has emerged as a big threat to the consolidation of rule of law in South Africa and some other democratic countries of that region and Latin America.
The State always uses the opportunity provided by the accelerating fear of crime to arm itself with repressive powers. Fear of crime provides an opportunity to the governments to introduce black laws; enhance powers of the police; overlook use of third degree methods by state agencies and curtail citizens’ rights. Instead of rule of law, rule of fear reigns supreme. In the final analysis, it is the democracy, which really gets mugged. This is what has happened in large parts of the democratic world after the September 11 incidents.
In such an environment where popular opinion supports authoritarian responses to crime and violence, the human rights movement suffers a set back. It faces an erosion of political support because the human rights groups are accused of coddling the criminals and ignoring the rights and needs of the citizens to live in a climate of peace and stability. There is also a feeling that the human rights organisations are always ready to denounce the police abuse, but hardly have any specific suggestions to improve their performance.
The other factor responsible for erosion of public faith is an economic one. There is considerable evidence to prove that poverty and income disparities in most democratic countries are increasing. In its Millennium Report on Human Rights and Poverty Eradication prepared for presentation at the next CHOGM meeting, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, an independent NGO based at New Delhi, has brought out some interesting facts about the incidence of poverty in the commonwealth countries. According to the report on “Human Rights and Poverty Eradication” (2001), in a commonwealth of 2000 million people, nearly 700 million live on less than US $ 1 a day. Over 40 % of population in Lesotho, India, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, Gambia and Sierra Leone live below the national poverty line or below an income of less than one $ a day. The share of the word’s poorest 20% in global income is only 1.11%, down from 2.3% in 1960. Today, the richest 20% earn 78 times more than the poorest 20%, while in 1960, the disparity was only 30 times as much. Even in developed democratic world, there are pockets of poverty. In the UK and Australia, over 13 % of the population live below the poverty line, while in Canada, the population living in poverty is 17.6%
One of the reasons for increasing poverty and deepening disparities is the failure of democratic regimes to control corruption in public life. Corruption is nothing but a tax on the poor. As the CHRI report says: “Corruption negates the rights of the poor, depriving them of their right to participation and denying them access to economic and social welfare. The result is a sense of hopelessness among people and general cynicism and selfishness in society.”
Consolidation of democratic space is thus dependent mainly on the ability of the democratic regimes to deal with the forces of crime and disorder effectively but justly, without violating human rights and to ensure that the fruits of development are distributed equitably. A rights based approach to the problems of crime and poverty is the need of the hour.
(Original Version of the Article published in the Statesman dated March 22, 2002)
The enactment of emergency laws in some democratic countries after Septmeber 11, including our own POTA, brings to the fore certain important issues about the shrinkage of democratic space available to citizens in the democratic world.
A few decades ago, one felt quite optimistic about the consolidation of democratic polity and culture in different parts of the world. The end of the cold war blocks, collapse of certain totalitarian, military and repressive regimes and transition to democracies in some countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, the spread of human rights philosophy and institutions, the strengthening of the NGO movement and rapid growth of economy in some parts of the democratic world gave rise to confidence in the efficacy of democratic polity to solve peoples’ problems.
This optimism has been belied. Amongst the factors responsible for decline in public faith, two have been prominent. One has been the failure of the criminal justice system to control crime in a fair, just and effective manner and the other has been the failure on the economic front to alleviate poverty and inequalities.
There is an increasing feeling that the democratic system has failed to provide a feeling of security to the common man. The establishment of a feeling of security is extremely important because without it, one can not enjoy one’s basic needs and rights. As 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.”
A large number of people are of the view that democracy as a system of governance is weak and fails to control crime effectively. This feeling is supported by the fact that crime rate in almost all the democratic countries is definitely very high and is continuously rising. The State is failing to prevent crime and in some cases also to deal promptly, justly and effectively with those who commit it. When a large number of people, after committing crimes, are allowed to get away and justice is not meted out to victims, or criminal cases in courts of law are allowed to drag on for umpteen number of years, it results in eroding the faith and confidence of the public in the effectiveness not merely of the criminal justice administration but of the whole system of democratic polity and governance.
A democratic system is associated with the rule of law. Loss of faith is all the greater and widespread when the rule of law is not enforced. The way the system has worked in some countries, it has given rise to an impression in the public mind that some persons i.e. those who are rich, influential and politically powerful, commit crimes with impunity and manage to remain above the law of the land and it is only those who belong to the poor and underprivileged sections of society who are put behind the prison walls for committing even minor infractions of law. The system also shows bias and discrimination on the basis of race, colour and caste. This leads to alienation of a large section of people who are victims of discrimination and injustice. It fuels the seeds of discontent, protest and violence.
The citizens expect the State to provide them freedom from crime and violence. The State’s failure to do so gives rise to public fear of crime and criminals. Fear of crime feeds on itself and always grows at a rate faster than crime. It reduces the quality of life enjoyed by citizens in many ways. It is such public fear and perceptions, which provide a license to the police to ignore the law and deal with crime and criminals by using rough and illegal methods. Police deviance always increases whenever the fear of crime whips up the rhetoric of ‘war against crime and criminals’. Citizens’ vigilantism, which poses another threat to the rule of law, is also known to increase when citizens lose faith in the ability of the state to control crime. Public vigilantism has emerged as a big threat to the consolidation of rule of law in South Africa and some other democratic countries of that region and Latin America.
The State always uses the opportunity provided by the accelerating fear of crime to arm itself with repressive powers. Fear of crime provides an opportunity to the governments to introduce black laws; enhance powers of the police; overlook use of third degree methods by state agencies and curtail citizens’ rights. Instead of rule of law, rule of fear reigns supreme. In the final analysis, it is the democracy, which really gets mugged. This is what has happened in large parts of the democratic world after the September 11 incidents.
In such an environment where popular opinion supports authoritarian responses to crime and violence, the human rights movement suffers a set back. It faces an erosion of political support because the human rights groups are accused of coddling the criminals and ignoring the rights and needs of the citizens to live in a climate of peace and stability. There is also a feeling that the human rights organisations are always ready to denounce the police abuse, but hardly have any specific suggestions to improve their performance.
The other factor responsible for erosion of public faith is an economic one. There is considerable evidence to prove that poverty and income disparities in most democratic countries are increasing. In its Millennium Report on Human Rights and Poverty Eradication prepared for presentation at the next CHOGM meeting, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, an independent NGO based at New Delhi, has brought out some interesting facts about the incidence of poverty in the commonwealth countries. According to the report on “Human Rights and Poverty Eradication” (2001), in a commonwealth of 2000 million people, nearly 700 million live on less than US $ 1 a day. Over 40 % of population in Lesotho, India, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, Gambia and Sierra Leone live below the national poverty line or below an income of less than one $ a day. The share of the word’s poorest 20% in global income is only 1.11%, down from 2.3% in 1960. Today, the richest 20% earn 78 times more than the poorest 20%, while in 1960, the disparity was only 30 times as much. Even in developed democratic world, there are pockets of poverty. In the UK and Australia, over 13 % of the population live below the poverty line, while in Canada, the population living in poverty is 17.6%
One of the reasons for increasing poverty and deepening disparities is the failure of democratic regimes to control corruption in public life. Corruption is nothing but a tax on the poor. As the CHRI report says: “Corruption negates the rights of the poor, depriving them of their right to participation and denying them access to economic and social welfare. The result is a sense of hopelessness among people and general cynicism and selfishness in society.”
Consolidation of democratic space is thus dependent mainly on the ability of the democratic regimes to deal with the forces of crime and disorder effectively but justly, without violating human rights and to ensure that the fruits of development are distributed equitably. A rights based approach to the problems of crime and poverty is the need of the hour.
(Original Version of the Article published in the Statesman dated March 22, 2002)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)