The Kingly Abuse of Power in the Police
The boast of J&K Deputy Inspector General’s son about his father being a “real king” because “last time he put his shoes himself was almost 15 years ago” has evoked angry reactions from many quarters.
This incident cannot be dismissed merely as a young man’s pompous and self satisfied response to how his father is enjoying the perks of his job. This incident is painful because it reflects on an agonising reality that has to be accepted.
This reality has two parts. One, the Dy I G, J & K is not the only one; there are many other ‘kings’ in police forces in the country. Only two years ago, a public interest litigation came up for hearing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on October 11, 2012, according to which, an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police of Vigilance Department was allegedly using as many as 31 police constables and head constables as “servants.” The Punjab Government is reported to have conducted an inquiry on receiving notice from the High Court and then suspended the officer. The orderly system exists and is often misused.
Two, the conditions under which the police constabulary work and live in this country are harsh, humiliating and oppressive. Their salaries are low; they do not have any fixed hours of work; their job is risky and stressful; family accommodation is not available to majority; they are constantly on the move and have very little to look forward to in terms of career advancement. While delivering the fourth Nani Palkhiwala Memorial lecture in Mumbai on October 5, 2009, Mr. P. C Chidambaram, the then Union Home Minster said that the Police Constable, “who works for 12 to 14 hours a day throughout the year is the most abused” part of the machinery. “Everyone believes that he can be bullied, or cajoled or bribed... he is the most reviled public servant.” He further said that the “self-esteem of average policeman is very low … and this average Police Constable is a frontline force for the internal security.”
The lower ranks in the police complain that their self-esteem is affected by the behaviour of their officers. There are two main grievances. One, policemen posted at the residences of senior officers as orderlies are often required to attend to the personal chores of the seniors and their family members. Two, the seniors’ treatment of the junior police officials is generally rough and rude. Added to these is another important factor. The general public also look down upon the police constable as a lowly creature. We have not given the policeman a status befitting his role in society. The policeman has a low image and this leads to a low status, which in turn perpetuates that image. Recently, there have been many incidents where lower ranked policemen have been abused and assaulted by politicians and public.
All these factors combine to lower the constabulary’s esteem in their own eyes and in the society’s. A policeman with low esteem cannot be a professionally efficient or a community friendly policeman. As observed by the National Police Commission, the manner in which police personnel at lower levels behave towards public is largely conditioned by the manner in which they are themselves treated by their own higher officers within the force. In its Vth report, the Commission observed: “No amount of exhortation from the higher ranks calling for courteous behaviour towards the public would carry conviction with the subordinates if in day to day police work these subordinates are treated with scant courtesy and consideration by the supervisory levels within the police force.”
The managerial philosophy of the police is based on distrust of the lower ranks in the organisation. In the pre- Independence days, the natives were not to be trusted. The Police Act of 1861 used the words “inferior officers” for those occupying the lower ranks in the police. The phrase still exists in the form of Section 7 of the Police Act of 1861, which is titled “Appointment, dismissal etc. of inferior officers.” A distinction between seniors and juniors in a hierarchical force is always understandable, but to categorise a small minority of senior officers as superior and a large chunk of strength as inferior smacks of a set up that is authoritarian and of values that are feudal. A Police Act, which condemned a large chunk of its force as “inferior” could hardly be expected to build it up as a professional organisation.
Even after Independence, the mind set has not changed. We have retained the same management style after Independence. The gulf between the senior officers and lower ranks is still very wide. As Mr. Ved Marwah, a senior retired police officer has mentioned: “Unfortunately, elitism within the superior ranks has only widened the gap between the field policemen and the supervising officers. The two inhabit very different worlds. A culture of distrust of the subordinate officer has developed over the years. This needs to change if the police are to be an accountable and professional force.”
In India, we have given ourselves a democratic structure of governance, but our values are highly feudal. In so far as the police are concerned, they are exceedingly colonial in their structure as well as values. This is one of the reasons why the police in this country have failed to develop self esteem and professional pride.
This article with some minor changes was published in the Indian Express dated November 1, 2014
