WHAT CAN THE INCIDENT TELL US?
President Obama’s statement calling the action of the white Cambridge police officer James Crowley in arresting the renowned black Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates ‘stupid’ has raised considerable controversy, with clear racial overtones.
This is what happened. After returning from an overseas study tour, Professor Gates found that the front door of his house had jammed. He with the help of his driver was trying to force open the door when a woman, on seeing "two black males with backpacks" trying to break in the front door, called the police, mistaking it for a burglary attempt. Sergeant Colley of the Cambridge police responded to the call. There was an altercation between the sergeant and the professor. According to the police version, the professor yelled at Crowley after the police officer asked him to show identification to prove he was living in that house. The police say they had to arrest the professor for "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior." He was handcuffed and charged with disorderly conduct, a charge that was later dropped.
The professor’s version was different. He was clear that he was a victim of racial profiling by the police and demanded apology from them for wrongfully arresting him. During a televised news conference, this event came up for Obama’s comments. He responded by saying Gates was a friend and he did not have full facts of the case. Even then he thought it fair to make three points. One, “any of us would be pretty angry.” Two, the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” in arresting the man who was in his own home. Three, “there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."
The fact to which the president referred is supported by considerable evidence, including the police and prison statistics. But then racism is an over sensitive issue in all multicultural societies including the USA and President Obama’s remarks immediately raised a hornet’s nest. They drew considerable criticism from various quarters, including the police. Sergeant Crowley said that the president was “way off base” for two reasons. One, this was a local issue not deserving of president’s intervention and, two, he made his comments without knowing the facts.
The sergeant received full support from his commissioner and the police union. The Cambridge police commissioner Robert C. Haas said that his department was "deeply pained" by the president's comments. They were a professionally proud group and Sergeant Colley acted according to the prescribed operational and training standards. His actions were not racially motivated. In fact, the sergeant had a good record on racially sensitive issues. He was also an instructor in the police academy teaching cops on racial profiling - a job assigned to him by a former black police commissioner Ron Watson. The Police Union also stood by what the sergeant did. A multiracial group of officers said Obama was “dead wrong” in making the disparaging remarks about the sergeant and the department.
Obama realised early that his comments had unwittingly created an unnecessary racial controversy- the first one after he became the President. He came out with numerous statements trying to mollify opinions and cool tempers. In addition, he invited both Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates to the White House to have beer with him.
Besides the existence of police bias in dealing with people of ethnic minorities, the above event and the way it was handled raises many interesting points for discussion in this country. If a similar event were to happen in this country, what would be the reactions of different parties? At least, three questions immediately come to mind. One, would a subordinate police officer in this country ever question the statement of the head of the state and say it was wide off the mark? Two, would the head of the police force in this country ever come to support his subordinate against the highest political executive? Three, would the head of the state ever invite a subordinate police officer to have a cup of tea with him or her? Forget the head of the state, would the chief of police in any state invite an officer of the rank of Inspector to come to his house and have tea with him? It is not necessary to respond to these questions, as answers are obvious.
We take pride in the fact that we are a democratic country, like the USA. In fact, the two countries are considered the largest democratic countries in the world, but there is a world of difference. More than the structure, it is the difference in values that underpin the functioning of the governing institutions that is vital. In India, we have given ourselves a democratic structure of governance, but our values are highly feudal. In fact, so far as the police are concerned, they are exceedingly colonial in their structure as well as values. It is for this reason that the police in this country have failed to develop self esteem and professional pride.
