MANAGERIAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE POLICE IN INDIA
The most important task of management in any organisation is to motivate people to develop team spirit, which fulfils the needs of individual employees and simultaneously helps in achieving organisational goals. The extent to which the management succeeds in performing this task depends upon the broad managerial philosophy that shapes its policies and programmes of action. The managerial philosophy of the leaders in turn is actually conditioned by their beliefs about human nature, particularly of their subordinates.
The police is a hierarchical organisation, with its structure having the shape of a pyramid. The base of the pyramid is very wide, but the cone keeps on tapering as it attains height. The constabulary (Constables & Head Constables) accounts for about 88% of the total police strength. Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors constitute about 11% of the total police strength. The officers i.e DySP/ASP upward to DGP account for less than 1% of the police strength. It is a very small group of officers belonging to senior ranks, who decide the policies of the organisation, issue instructions to be followed by the rest of the force and supervise the work of the subordinates.
As long as the quality of communication between the seniors and junior subordinate ranks in the police is good, things work out smoothly. Unfortunately, a big gap exists between the senior and lower ranks in the police in this country and the quality of communication between the two is generally very poor. Indeed over a period of time, it has only become poorer. Sometimes, one gets an impression that the seniors and lower ranks constitute two opposite camps, with a fairly big gulf of distrust dividing them. The problem needs to be discussed in its historical perspective.
The British raised the police in this country on a militaristic and authoritarian pattern. There was tremendous emphasis on maintenance of a type of discipline, which bordered on regimentation, requiring the lower ranks to obey orders blindly. The system did not require the constabulary to put on their thinking caps while performing their duties. They in fact were not supposed to have any. That is why recruitment to constabulary stressed on the requirements of brawn and not brain. The taller and heftier the recruit, the better. He need not be educated, but he must have an intimidating presence. During training, his physical fitness and endurance must improve. It was for this reason that the training programme of the constabulary was always biased heavily in favour of outdoor activities, like drill.
The British also structured the organisation in a way so that the senior positions in the force would be occupied by them and the junior slots would be kept for ‘natives.’ Even when the senior posts were Indianised in due course, the elitist bias was not forsaken. Family background always weighed heavy in picking candidates for senior vacancies. They realised that a system based on feudal values prevalent in the Indian society would work effectively in ensuring that the rank and file, which constituted the bulk of the force, remained loyal and subservient to their seniors within the organisation and outside.
This gave rise to a managerial philosophy, which was based on distrust of the lower ranks in the organisation. The natives were not to be trusted. The only way to make them work was to keep on showing the rod and occasionally dangle a carrot before them. This distrust of the police station staff is seen in the system of records maintained at the police station level. A large number of records, with the same entry figuring in more than one, were deliberately prescribed, so that the seniors during formal inspections or even on casual visits to the police station could catch the lower staff on the wrong foot. The same distrust is reflected in the provisions of law also, like those relating to the FIR, maintenance of Case Diary, Station Diary, recording of statements of witnesses, confessions etc.
Even after Independence, this mind set has not changed. The managerial values are still feudal. In fact, nothing has ever been done to change them. The system of recruitment and training has remained the same. A very senior retired police officer Ved Marwah has mentioned that all that happened after Independence was that “the brown sahibs replaced the white sahibs.” According to Mr. Marwah, “ a sort of caste system has developed… An artificial distinction has been created between the supervisory ranks and the ranks actually performing police duties. As a result, professionalism in the force has suffered.”
A large chunk of the force is recruited from the lower strata of society, while the seniors joining the organisation come from educated upper strata. The culture gap between the lower and senior ranks further reinforces the feelings of distrust between the two.
An IPS officer joins the organisation at the level of Assistant Superintendent of Police. He has thus already jumped over five ranks (i.e Constable, Head Constable, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police) without doing even one day’s police work. This deprives the officer of the practical experience of doing field police work in all those ranks and understanding the problems faced by lower ranks working at grass root level. The type of field-work done during the district training can never substitute the actual experience gathered while working in different ranks as a part of normal progression of career, accepting all the responsibilities attached to the job at various levels.
The CHRI recently did a study on Police Public Interface in nine selected police stations in three states, viz. Assam, Rajasthan and Tamilnadu. Perceptions of police personnel of lower ranks were studied. The perceptions clearly indicated the existence of a feeling amongst the lower ranks that their problems are not appreciated by their seniors; that they are often left in the lurch; and that they do not get support even when they have done no wrong. The police personnel at the station level are highly dissatisfied with their working and service conditions. Their salaries are low; they do not have any fixed hours of work; family accommodation is not available to majority; and they have very little to look forward to in terms of career advancement. There is a feeling amongst them that while the seniors keep on getting their promotion in due time, the lower level police station staff have to wait long and even then only few get what is their due.
They are always under constant pressure to produce results according to what their seniors want. The requirements of seniors are often determined by what the politicians want. Adoption of short cuts by the police station staff or malpractices in which they sometimes indulge, according to them, is generally the result of these pressures.
The lower level staff in the police also feel that decisions regarding their postings, transfers, rewards, suspensions, dismissals and other punishments are often taken on extraneous considerations and are not merit or justice based.
The lower ranks in the police also complain that their self-esteem is affected by the behaviour of their superior officers. There are two main grievances. One, they are often asked to attend to the personal chores of the seniors and their family members. Constables posted at the residences of senior officers as orderlies are even required to do menial tasks. Two, the seniors’ treatment of the junior police officials is rough and rude. They often shout and do not hesitate to use abusive language even in the presence of others. As observed by the National Police Commission in its Fifth Report, the manner in which police personnel behave towards public is largely conditioned by the manner in which they are themselves treated by their own higher officers within the force. There is a need for reforms in behaviour and conduct of police officers towards one another.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Saturday, September 4, 2004
LYNCH JUSTICE
LYNCH JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW
The incident that occurred in Nagpur city on August 13, involving the women of Kasturba Nagar in the murder of a notorious criminal of that colony inside the court premises, has been prominently in the news.
Details of what happened are not very clear. The police have kept a tight lip and in the absence of information, all types of rumours are flowing thick and fast. The initial reaction in some quarters was to see a police hand in the engineering of the incident, if not in its execution. The talk of this being the result of a gang rivalry, with women providing a cover up, was also heard. Some felt that caste played a role in the entire incident- a predominantly dalit community finally taking its revenge against a goon belonging to a backward caste. Different types of questions are being asked. How could this happen inside the court premises? Why couldn’t the police escort rescue him from the mob? If a similar attempt had been made earlier, why couldn’t the attack be foreseen and adequate arrangements made to safely escort him? Why couldn’t the man do anything to defend himself? Was he unable to do so because, in violation of D. K. Basu’s judgement, he was handcuffed while being brought to the court?
Some of these questions will be answered during the trial of the case. For the time being, let us accept the story as it has been reported and analyse its implications.
The police are prosecuting five women, though 400 are reported to have come forward, openly confessing to the crime. Women have shown no remorse, but, in fact, issued a determined warning they will do it again if another Akku Yadav takes birth. Their argument is that they had suffered enough wrongs through the hands of one man and the entire state machinery had failed to provide security, protection and justice to them. They therefore decided to right all wrongs done to them by taking law in their own hands and in their opinion there was nothing wrong about what they did.
Very few voices of disapproval over what happened have been reported. While the residents of Kasturba Nagar are all united in backing the women, it appears that the public in other places too are sympathetic to what happened. On a TV programme the other day, someone said that the incident was waiting to happen
There are two important reasons for sympathetic public response. One is the fact that the act, as per the story, was done by women, who did not belong to any naxalite or war like group or who had no criminal record. They were simple ordinary women belonging to poor or lower middle class families and had been victims of all kinds of humiliations and atrocities for a long time. The other reason is the helplessness that most citizens experience when they find the system of justice failing them when it is needed most. The system is too slow and inefficient to provide them a feeling of security.
One of the important needs of citizens is to get protection from crime and criminals and they expect the state to provide that. When crime continues to rise menacingly and the state fails to deal promptly, justly and effectively with those who commit crime, it creates a feeling of insecurity. The rich are able to buy security, private as well as public; but most have no means to defend themselves. Their sense of insecurity resulting from fear of crime, combined with a sense of injustice caused by the repeated failure of the system to deal with criminals effectively, gives rise to vigilante incidents. It shows complete collapse of public faith and confidence in the capability of the formal system.
Delivering instant private justice to suspects of crime has very serious implications for the functioning of the criminal justice system and good governance in a democratic society.
Article 14 of the Constitution provides equal protection of laws to all citizens and Article 21 says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Killing a person without legal or judicial sanction constitutes an offence of murder. However, this is not viewed accordingly by the public when they take law in their own hands and beat suspects of crime or known criminals to death. It is such public fear and perceptions, which sometimes provide a licence to the police to ignore the law and deal with crime and criminals by using rough and illegal methods. Blinding of criminals done by Bhagalpur Police way back in early eighties was one example of such licence. This has since been followed by many other incidents.
In fact, killing criminals in fake encounters is a manifestation of police vigilantism. The prominent danger in ignoring public vigilantism, like the Nagpur incident, is that it is likely to promote greater acceptance by the public of police vigilantism.
Fear of crime grows faster than crime and feeds on itself. The State knows this and uses the opportunity provided by the fear of crime to arm itself with repressive powers. It reacts by adopting short-cut methods. Black laws are introduced; powers of the police are enhanced; use of third degree methods by state agencies is overlooked and many rights are curtailed. Instead of the rule of law, rule of fear reigns supreme. In the final analysis, it is the democracy, which really gets “mugged”. This has been happening in many parts of the democratic world since 9/11.
The Government in this country has not devoted adequate attention to reforming the criminal justice system. Its time it did so, enhancing its capability to deal with crime and criminals swiftly and effectively and providing justice to all. The state cannot abdicate its responsibility in this regard. Letting people take law in their own hands and practise ‘lynch justice’ against suspects of crime is to allow the rule of jungle to prevail over the rule of law and is the surest way of sounding the death-knell of the democratic system of governance.
(Original version of the article published in the Indian Express dated September 4, 2004)
The incident that occurred in Nagpur city on August 13, involving the women of Kasturba Nagar in the murder of a notorious criminal of that colony inside the court premises, has been prominently in the news.
Details of what happened are not very clear. The police have kept a tight lip and in the absence of information, all types of rumours are flowing thick and fast. The initial reaction in some quarters was to see a police hand in the engineering of the incident, if not in its execution. The talk of this being the result of a gang rivalry, with women providing a cover up, was also heard. Some felt that caste played a role in the entire incident- a predominantly dalit community finally taking its revenge against a goon belonging to a backward caste. Different types of questions are being asked. How could this happen inside the court premises? Why couldn’t the police escort rescue him from the mob? If a similar attempt had been made earlier, why couldn’t the attack be foreseen and adequate arrangements made to safely escort him? Why couldn’t the man do anything to defend himself? Was he unable to do so because, in violation of D. K. Basu’s judgement, he was handcuffed while being brought to the court?
Some of these questions will be answered during the trial of the case. For the time being, let us accept the story as it has been reported and analyse its implications.
The police are prosecuting five women, though 400 are reported to have come forward, openly confessing to the crime. Women have shown no remorse, but, in fact, issued a determined warning they will do it again if another Akku Yadav takes birth. Their argument is that they had suffered enough wrongs through the hands of one man and the entire state machinery had failed to provide security, protection and justice to them. They therefore decided to right all wrongs done to them by taking law in their own hands and in their opinion there was nothing wrong about what they did.
Very few voices of disapproval over what happened have been reported. While the residents of Kasturba Nagar are all united in backing the women, it appears that the public in other places too are sympathetic to what happened. On a TV programme the other day, someone said that the incident was waiting to happen
There are two important reasons for sympathetic public response. One is the fact that the act, as per the story, was done by women, who did not belong to any naxalite or war like group or who had no criminal record. They were simple ordinary women belonging to poor or lower middle class families and had been victims of all kinds of humiliations and atrocities for a long time. The other reason is the helplessness that most citizens experience when they find the system of justice failing them when it is needed most. The system is too slow and inefficient to provide them a feeling of security.
One of the important needs of citizens is to get protection from crime and criminals and they expect the state to provide that. When crime continues to rise menacingly and the state fails to deal promptly, justly and effectively with those who commit crime, it creates a feeling of insecurity. The rich are able to buy security, private as well as public; but most have no means to defend themselves. Their sense of insecurity resulting from fear of crime, combined with a sense of injustice caused by the repeated failure of the system to deal with criminals effectively, gives rise to vigilante incidents. It shows complete collapse of public faith and confidence in the capability of the formal system.
Delivering instant private justice to suspects of crime has very serious implications for the functioning of the criminal justice system and good governance in a democratic society.
Article 14 of the Constitution provides equal protection of laws to all citizens and Article 21 says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Killing a person without legal or judicial sanction constitutes an offence of murder. However, this is not viewed accordingly by the public when they take law in their own hands and beat suspects of crime or known criminals to death. It is such public fear and perceptions, which sometimes provide a licence to the police to ignore the law and deal with crime and criminals by using rough and illegal methods. Blinding of criminals done by Bhagalpur Police way back in early eighties was one example of such licence. This has since been followed by many other incidents.
In fact, killing criminals in fake encounters is a manifestation of police vigilantism. The prominent danger in ignoring public vigilantism, like the Nagpur incident, is that it is likely to promote greater acceptance by the public of police vigilantism.
Fear of crime grows faster than crime and feeds on itself. The State knows this and uses the opportunity provided by the fear of crime to arm itself with repressive powers. It reacts by adopting short-cut methods. Black laws are introduced; powers of the police are enhanced; use of third degree methods by state agencies is overlooked and many rights are curtailed. Instead of the rule of law, rule of fear reigns supreme. In the final analysis, it is the democracy, which really gets “mugged”. This has been happening in many parts of the democratic world since 9/11.
The Government in this country has not devoted adequate attention to reforming the criminal justice system. Its time it did so, enhancing its capability to deal with crime and criminals swiftly and effectively and providing justice to all. The state cannot abdicate its responsibility in this regard. Letting people take law in their own hands and practise ‘lynch justice’ against suspects of crime is to allow the rule of jungle to prevail over the rule of law and is the surest way of sounding the death-knell of the democratic system of governance.
(Original version of the article published in the Indian Express dated September 4, 2004)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)