SECTARIAN VIRUS IN THE POLICE FORCE
The Union Home Minister, Mr. Indrajit Gupta, seems to have a penchant for expressing some bitter truths frankly. A couple of months ago, he expressed his helplessness in breaking the politics-crime nexus which, according to him, had struck deep roots in the country. More recently, while addressing the contingent of IPS probationers at the National Police Academy, Hyderabad, he expressed distress at the fact that the UP police had been affected by the forces of casteism and communalism.
An observation of this type should have raised many eyebrows. It was made by no less a person than the Union Home Minister whose Ministry deals with police problems. Besides, the statement goes against the very fundamentals of the police philosophy, which require the force to function impartially as an agent of law, unaffected by caste or communal considerations. The statement, however, did not create even a ripple of excitement in political, academic, or in police circles. This happened probably because nobody found anything new or surprising in what Mr. Gupta said.
Members of the minority communities or those belonging to lower castes have often perceived the police as a biased and partisan agency. A number of judicial enquiry commissions set up to enquire into communal and caste riots have commented adversely on the police for showing discrimination in the handling of such disturbances. The National Police Commission in its sixth report referred to the stringent criticism received by it from many responsible quarters that the police often did not act impartially and objectively. To some extent, the increasing perception of the police force as communal or casteist is a reflection of the sharpening of the divide amongst the communities on communal or caste
lines. Earlier, it was hoped that the virus of communalism and casteism dividing the Indian society would meet its eventual end once the liberal institutions and value systems took roots. This has not happened. Religion and caste have, in fact, emerged as stronger dividing forces. The religious and caste affiliations and feelings existing in our traditional society have been manipulated and exploited by politicians to create, retain and expand their vote banks.
This has resulted in further strengthening the communal and casteist feelings amongst vast sections of the community. Policing such an environment becomes a difficult task as it requires the police to remain unaffected by the forces which are influencing the attitudes, values and behaviour of large sections of population with whom they interact closely in their day-to-day work. A sizeable chunk of constabulary comes from the traditionally conservative families and bring with them a set of ‘muffasil’ values and attitudes at the time of joining the police force.
Shedding off some of the accumulated prejudices becomes a difficult task when the same set of prejudices is entrenching its stranglehold on other segments of population. The problem of police being affected by communalism or casteism is linked not only to the problem of increasing hold of communal forces over others in society, but also to that of gradual and continuous erosion of the authority of police as an agency of law which has occurred in this country over a period of time. The philosophy of police neutrality is embedded in the concept of the rule of law. That concept has not merely been devalued but, in fact, subverted to serve the interests of powerful people and sections of society.
This has been done by manipulating the police and not letting it function as an agency of law. One of the methods used for this purpose is to post such officers in important or sensitive districts as are always willing to toe the line. Appointments and postings of officers in States like UP are governed not by their secular credentials or professionalism but by their caste or religious affiliations and by their pliability to accept and implement all types of orders- right or wrong.
The police being the, most visible arm of the State, loss of confidence on the part of members of any community in its ability, resulting from its partisan behaviour, leads to the erosion of faith in the credentials of the States. The problem to which the Union Home Minister referred has thus serious implications not merely for the police department but for the entire society. The problem is too important to be neglected and deserves to be tackled in right earnest.
One of the remedial measures suggested by some is to increase the representation from minority communities and Scheduled Castes in the police. At present, the police forces in all States and Union territories have a total strength of 13,51,047, out of which as many as 1,66,779 (12.3 per cent) belong to Scheduled Castes and 78,799 (5.8 per cent) are Muslims. It is felt by some that this representation is rather low and needs to be increased. While people from all communities should be recruited to give a composite character to the police force,
this should not be done by diluting the standards of recruitment. It is unfortunate that deliberate attempts were made recently in some States, like UP during Mr. Mulayam Singh’s Chief Ministership, to raise new police forces under special legislative enactments, which permitted dilution of standards so that people belonging to a certain community could be recruited in large numbers. This is the surest way to spread communal or caste virus. If the spread of the virus of communalism in the police forces has to be checked the standards of
recruitment must be high vigorously enforced.
A lasting solution of the problem, however, would require establishment of arrangements through which the police administration can be insulated against undesirable and illegitimate interferences. As long as appointments, postings, transfers and promotions are guided by communal and caste considerations, it will not be possible to stop the spread of communal virus in the force. A clean force would require a clean administration.
(Published in the Hindustan Times dated 12.11.96)
Tuesday, November 12, 1996
Saturday, April 13, 1996
ROLE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN CONTROLLING CRIME
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND CRIME CONTROL
Crime in India has shown an increasing trend during the last few decades. The total IPC crime in the country, which was only 6.26 lakh in 1961, rose to 16.30 lakh. While the population of the country registered an increase of 101.90 per cent during this period, IPC crime increased by 160.3 per cent. Crime has thus been rising at a rate faster than that of the population growth.
What is more ominous is the trend of violent crime. The incidence of violent crime increased from 55,726 in 1961 to 2,32,554 in 1993, thus rising by 317.3 per cent during this period. The increase in crime has been accompanied by a gradual fall in the conviction rate. While in 1971, 62 per cent of the IPC cases ended in conviction, in 1993, it had fallen to 45.9 per cent.
Another disturbing trend is the increasing pendency of cases under trial. The total number of criminal cases pending in the magistrates and sessions courts in the country had gone up from 45.5 lakh in 1976 to 136.5 lakh in 1992-93. In addition, 3.04 lakh cases were pending in high courts as on December 31,1993.
The data thus reveals a rising trend in crime, more so in violent crime, a declining rate of convictions and an increasing pendency of cases under trial. This means that more and more people are committing crime and getting away with it. Cases are settled after a long time. Justice is being delayed and denied. Obviously, the criminal justice system has failed in achieving its objectives.
How has the Central Government responded to the problem of controlling crime? Controlling crime is, of course, not the direct responsibility of the Central Government, as the police and other agencies of the criminal justice system, like courts, prisons etc. are placed by Article 246 of the Constitution in the State List. The Central Government has very often taken refuge behind these provisions of the Constitution and tried to wash its hands off the responsibility in such matters.
This, however, is a very narrow and short-sighted approach. These are certain provisions in the Constitution itself, which suggest an important role for the Centre in strengthening and improving the criminal justice system. Some awareness of its role was shown by the Central government in the recent past when it organized a conference of the Chief Ministers on the administration of criminal justice on November 13, 1992. Some important problems relating to the administration of criminal justice at the district level, including that of criminalisation of politics, were discussed. However, like all such conferences, what started with a bang ended with whimper. The resolution passed by the conference remained unimplemented for the lack of follow-up action.
It is rather interesting to note that the inadequate concern shown by the Central Government towards the problem of controlling crime has not been repeated in the area of maintenance of law and order, even though ‘Public Order’ is the first item in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In fact, the brunt of major law and order disturbances, which have occurred in different States, has been borne by the Central paramilitary forces. The heavy dependence of the State governments of the Centre to maintain law and order is responsible for the huge expansion of the Central paramilitary forces. This has naturally led to tremendous increase in the Central expenditure on police.
Most of the expenditure by the Central Government is being incurred on the expansion and maintenance of the Central forces which, strictly speaking, are not doing a policing job, particularly insofar as crime control is concerned.
There has been considerable public criticism of the police performance in the country. This is as it should be. It is, however, necessary to remember that the police is only one part of the criminal justice system. The other very important part is constituted by the courts and their performance should be kept equally under constant public watch. The record of the courts in dealing with crime and criminals has not been very bright. The way the courts function is an important reason for the delay in disposal of criminal cases. If there can be a time limit for completion of investigation in law, there is no reason why similar time limit should not be prescribed for completing trial in criminal cases.
Here, the Centre cannot even take shelter behind the provisions of the Constitution for not taking initiatives. Criminal law and criminal procedure are items in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This is an area which cries for reforms. The police in this country are still being governed by the Police Act of 1861. In addition, some other major laws are outdated. The three major laws, i.e. the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act were enacted by the British during the second half of the last century. Out of these, the only Act which has been subjected to a thorough major review after Independence is the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other two laws, except for some minor amendments, have remained unchanged.
The Central Government has not evolved a coherent, well knit national policy to deal with crime and criminals. The working of the Central Government in these areas has been characterised by a narrow, fragmented and ad hoc approach. This becomes clear from the administrative set-up in the Centre itself.
The National Police Commission had recommended the establishment on statutory basis of a Criminal Justice Commission at the Centre which should have the authority and the requisite facilities to maintain a constant and comprehensive look at the entire system, to monitor its performance and suggest necessary corrective measures from time to time, keeping in view the overall objective of the system. The need to implement this recommendation of the National Police Commission can hardly be over-emphasised.
(Published in the Hindustan Times dated April 12, 1996)
Crime in India has shown an increasing trend during the last few decades. The total IPC crime in the country, which was only 6.26 lakh in 1961, rose to 16.30 lakh. While the population of the country registered an increase of 101.90 per cent during this period, IPC crime increased by 160.3 per cent. Crime has thus been rising at a rate faster than that of the population growth.
What is more ominous is the trend of violent crime. The incidence of violent crime increased from 55,726 in 1961 to 2,32,554 in 1993, thus rising by 317.3 per cent during this period. The increase in crime has been accompanied by a gradual fall in the conviction rate. While in 1971, 62 per cent of the IPC cases ended in conviction, in 1993, it had fallen to 45.9 per cent.
Another disturbing trend is the increasing pendency of cases under trial. The total number of criminal cases pending in the magistrates and sessions courts in the country had gone up from 45.5 lakh in 1976 to 136.5 lakh in 1992-93. In addition, 3.04 lakh cases were pending in high courts as on December 31,1993.
The data thus reveals a rising trend in crime, more so in violent crime, a declining rate of convictions and an increasing pendency of cases under trial. This means that more and more people are committing crime and getting away with it. Cases are settled after a long time. Justice is being delayed and denied. Obviously, the criminal justice system has failed in achieving its objectives.
How has the Central Government responded to the problem of controlling crime? Controlling crime is, of course, not the direct responsibility of the Central Government, as the police and other agencies of the criminal justice system, like courts, prisons etc. are placed by Article 246 of the Constitution in the State List. The Central Government has very often taken refuge behind these provisions of the Constitution and tried to wash its hands off the responsibility in such matters.
This, however, is a very narrow and short-sighted approach. These are certain provisions in the Constitution itself, which suggest an important role for the Centre in strengthening and improving the criminal justice system. Some awareness of its role was shown by the Central government in the recent past when it organized a conference of the Chief Ministers on the administration of criminal justice on November 13, 1992. Some important problems relating to the administration of criminal justice at the district level, including that of criminalisation of politics, were discussed. However, like all such conferences, what started with a bang ended with whimper. The resolution passed by the conference remained unimplemented for the lack of follow-up action.
It is rather interesting to note that the inadequate concern shown by the Central Government towards the problem of controlling crime has not been repeated in the area of maintenance of law and order, even though ‘Public Order’ is the first item in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In fact, the brunt of major law and order disturbances, which have occurred in different States, has been borne by the Central paramilitary forces. The heavy dependence of the State governments of the Centre to maintain law and order is responsible for the huge expansion of the Central paramilitary forces. This has naturally led to tremendous increase in the Central expenditure on police.
Most of the expenditure by the Central Government is being incurred on the expansion and maintenance of the Central forces which, strictly speaking, are not doing a policing job, particularly insofar as crime control is concerned.
There has been considerable public criticism of the police performance in the country. This is as it should be. It is, however, necessary to remember that the police is only one part of the criminal justice system. The other very important part is constituted by the courts and their performance should be kept equally under constant public watch. The record of the courts in dealing with crime and criminals has not been very bright. The way the courts function is an important reason for the delay in disposal of criminal cases. If there can be a time limit for completion of investigation in law, there is no reason why similar time limit should not be prescribed for completing trial in criminal cases.
Here, the Centre cannot even take shelter behind the provisions of the Constitution for not taking initiatives. Criminal law and criminal procedure are items in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This is an area which cries for reforms. The police in this country are still being governed by the Police Act of 1861. In addition, some other major laws are outdated. The three major laws, i.e. the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act were enacted by the British during the second half of the last century. Out of these, the only Act which has been subjected to a thorough major review after Independence is the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other two laws, except for some minor amendments, have remained unchanged.
The Central Government has not evolved a coherent, well knit national policy to deal with crime and criminals. The working of the Central Government in these areas has been characterised by a narrow, fragmented and ad hoc approach. This becomes clear from the administrative set-up in the Centre itself.
The National Police Commission had recommended the establishment on statutory basis of a Criminal Justice Commission at the Centre which should have the authority and the requisite facilities to maintain a constant and comprehensive look at the entire system, to monitor its performance and suggest necessary corrective measures from time to time, keeping in view the overall objective of the system. The need to implement this recommendation of the National Police Commission can hardly be over-emphasised.
(Published in the Hindustan Times dated April 12, 1996)
Saturday, October 28, 1995
POLICE & POLITICS
POLICE & POLITICS:CALL FOR FREEDOM FROM INTERFERENCE
Considerable publicity was given recently to a news item, according to which Mr. Rajesh Pilot, the former Minister for Internal Security, had issued written orders to the Central Bureau of Investigation to arrest the controversial godman Chandraswami. An attempt was also made to link the action of Mr. Pilot to the internal squabbles within the party in power. The news item raises some vital issues concerning the relationship between politics and policing as it has evolved in this country since Independence. A relevant question to ask is: under what authority, did the Minister issue orders to the CBI? If Mr. Pilot could order the premier investigating agency of the country to arrest a person, he obviously also had the powers to ask the police not to arrest somebody.
We in this country have become so accustomed to seeing the politicians and bureaucrats issuing unauthorized orders to the police that no eyebrows were raised on learning about action taken by Mr. Pilot. Arresting a person suspected to be involved in the commission of a cognizable offence is a part of the process of law enforcement and has, therefore, to be governed by the provisions of law. Law does not empower any person or agency outside the law enforcement machinery to take such decisions.
INTERVENTION
Frequent outside interventions in the operational jurisdiction of the police, not supported by law, have not been confined merely to the field of crime investigation, but have also been noticed in the area of police work pertaining to the maintenance of law and order. There have been numerous occasions when instructions or orders, written or verbal, have been issued to the police, suggesting how they should act in controlling a particular riot.
Though law does not give the authority to any outsider, orders to use or not to use force or to prohibit the police from taking recourse to the use of firearms have often been given by outsiders. Prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the then Chief Minister of U.P. announced that he had passed orders to the police not to open fire on the riotous crowd which had gathered there. The result was there for the entire world to watch In situations like the ones mentioned above, the police find themselves on the horns of a dilemma-to follow the dictates of the law or the political or bureaucratic masters. This dilemma is invariably resolved in favour of the latter, which produces two immediate interlinked consequences-(i) erosion of the authority of the police as an agency of law, and (ii) undermining of public faith and confidence in the neutrality and impartiality of the police.
The senior leadership in the police in this country cannot be absolved completely of their responsibility in contributing to this state of affairs. The desire of some of them to beat their colleagues in the race to the top and to get and retain coveted postings has been responsible for creating a climate within the organization in which their own authority to exercise command and control gets eroded, with the functionaries at different levels also looking elsewhere for protection an rewards.
An attempt is often made by us to explain, if not to justify, by mentioning that the problem being faced by us is not something peculiar to India and that what is happening here has already occurred in other countries. It is true that there has been considerable political and administrative manipulation of the police in other countries also, even in the highly advanced and democratic ones. The history of policing and political development in some cities in the USA, for instance, reveals numerous instances of the police being used as a tool by politicians in power. As early as in 1931, the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, USA, popularly known as the Wickersham Commission, in their Report on Police, had referred to the “corrupting influence of politics” over the police organization. The Commission not only pointed out the example where the Mayor of a city had “appointed his tailor as the Chief of Police because he had been his tailor for 20 years and he know he was a good tailor and so necessarily would make a good Chief of Police”, but showed as to how “limiting the powers of the police executive by placing absolute control of police under the Mayor. Commissioner or city manager has opened the door to every conceivable type of incompetence, political corruption and organizational demoralization.”
RULE OF LAW
The type of situation prevailing in our country appears to be fairly close to what the Wickersham Commission pointed out in 1931. What happened in history in some countries however can hardly be a source of consolation for the ills that affect our system today. In this country, we have adopted a democratic system, with a written constitution which enshrines the basic tenets of the Rule of Law. In a system based on the Rule of Law, according to Dicey, there is absolute supremacy of laws as opposed to the influence of arbitrary powers, equal subjection of all citizens to the laws of the land and equal protection of laws. We have also prescribed a code of conduct for the police in this country, which lays down that the police derive their powers from the law and must function according to its dictates. This, however is all on paper only, as in practice, the police have not functioned according to their Code. The police in this country have never been made functionally independent, free from interferences, influences and pressures of different kinds.
It is this functional independence, which is the hallmark of the police in the U.K Lord Dening, in the 1968 case of R.V. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex-parte Blackburne emphasized this doctrine in these works “I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police as it is of every Chief Constable to enforce the law of the land…but…he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must or must not prosecute this man or that one. Nor can the Police Authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.” The Royal Commission on Police, U.K., in their repot in 1962, recommended that the independent status of the police officer must continue.
UNHOLY NEXUS
The increasing criminalization of politics in this country has been a subject-matter of debate recently. Feelings of disquiet and concern have been expressed by many, including the politicians. Suggestions have been made to deal with this problem. The package of measures adopted, if any, must include delinking policing from politics. Without granting functional independence to the police, it would not be possible to break the nexus between politics and crime. Functional independence, however does not mean lack of accountability. The police are armed with tremendous powers and exercise wide influence over the lives of the citizens. There is, therefore, a definite need to impose proper checks on their powers. They must be accountable to the community for what they do and, what is more important, how they do it. It would, therefore, be wrong to question the propriety of political control and interference in all situations. The problem ultimately is one of making a distinction between the legitimate and illegitimate political influences.
The involvement of politics in policing must remain confined to providing adequate, well-equipped and an efficient police force to the community and to improving suitable effective checks on the powers of the police to ensure that they discharge their functions cleanly and in accordance with the law of the land. Any other control or interference must be treated as illegitimate. Functionally, the police must be independent and for this they must resist all illegitimate pressures. The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate control may appear to be thin but, with the passage of time, it may not remain so, particularly once there comes into existence an alert, mature and enlightened citizenry in the community.
(Published in the Statesman dated 28/10/1995)
Considerable publicity was given recently to a news item, according to which Mr. Rajesh Pilot, the former Minister for Internal Security, had issued written orders to the Central Bureau of Investigation to arrest the controversial godman Chandraswami. An attempt was also made to link the action of Mr. Pilot to the internal squabbles within the party in power. The news item raises some vital issues concerning the relationship between politics and policing as it has evolved in this country since Independence. A relevant question to ask is: under what authority, did the Minister issue orders to the CBI? If Mr. Pilot could order the premier investigating agency of the country to arrest a person, he obviously also had the powers to ask the police not to arrest somebody.
We in this country have become so accustomed to seeing the politicians and bureaucrats issuing unauthorized orders to the police that no eyebrows were raised on learning about action taken by Mr. Pilot. Arresting a person suspected to be involved in the commission of a cognizable offence is a part of the process of law enforcement and has, therefore, to be governed by the provisions of law. Law does not empower any person or agency outside the law enforcement machinery to take such decisions.
INTERVENTION
Frequent outside interventions in the operational jurisdiction of the police, not supported by law, have not been confined merely to the field of crime investigation, but have also been noticed in the area of police work pertaining to the maintenance of law and order. There have been numerous occasions when instructions or orders, written or verbal, have been issued to the police, suggesting how they should act in controlling a particular riot.
Though law does not give the authority to any outsider, orders to use or not to use force or to prohibit the police from taking recourse to the use of firearms have often been given by outsiders. Prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the then Chief Minister of U.P. announced that he had passed orders to the police not to open fire on the riotous crowd which had gathered there. The result was there for the entire world to watch In situations like the ones mentioned above, the police find themselves on the horns of a dilemma-to follow the dictates of the law or the political or bureaucratic masters. This dilemma is invariably resolved in favour of the latter, which produces two immediate interlinked consequences-(i) erosion of the authority of the police as an agency of law, and (ii) undermining of public faith and confidence in the neutrality and impartiality of the police.
The senior leadership in the police in this country cannot be absolved completely of their responsibility in contributing to this state of affairs. The desire of some of them to beat their colleagues in the race to the top and to get and retain coveted postings has been responsible for creating a climate within the organization in which their own authority to exercise command and control gets eroded, with the functionaries at different levels also looking elsewhere for protection an rewards.
An attempt is often made by us to explain, if not to justify, by mentioning that the problem being faced by us is not something peculiar to India and that what is happening here has already occurred in other countries. It is true that there has been considerable political and administrative manipulation of the police in other countries also, even in the highly advanced and democratic ones. The history of policing and political development in some cities in the USA, for instance, reveals numerous instances of the police being used as a tool by politicians in power. As early as in 1931, the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, USA, popularly known as the Wickersham Commission, in their Report on Police, had referred to the “corrupting influence of politics” over the police organization. The Commission not only pointed out the example where the Mayor of a city had “appointed his tailor as the Chief of Police because he had been his tailor for 20 years and he know he was a good tailor and so necessarily would make a good Chief of Police”, but showed as to how “limiting the powers of the police executive by placing absolute control of police under the Mayor. Commissioner or city manager has opened the door to every conceivable type of incompetence, political corruption and organizational demoralization.”
RULE OF LAW
The type of situation prevailing in our country appears to be fairly close to what the Wickersham Commission pointed out in 1931. What happened in history in some countries however can hardly be a source of consolation for the ills that affect our system today. In this country, we have adopted a democratic system, with a written constitution which enshrines the basic tenets of the Rule of Law. In a system based on the Rule of Law, according to Dicey, there is absolute supremacy of laws as opposed to the influence of arbitrary powers, equal subjection of all citizens to the laws of the land and equal protection of laws. We have also prescribed a code of conduct for the police in this country, which lays down that the police derive their powers from the law and must function according to its dictates. This, however is all on paper only, as in practice, the police have not functioned according to their Code. The police in this country have never been made functionally independent, free from interferences, influences and pressures of different kinds.
It is this functional independence, which is the hallmark of the police in the U.K Lord Dening, in the 1968 case of R.V. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex-parte Blackburne emphasized this doctrine in these works “I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police as it is of every Chief Constable to enforce the law of the land…but…he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must or must not prosecute this man or that one. Nor can the Police Authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.” The Royal Commission on Police, U.K., in their repot in 1962, recommended that the independent status of the police officer must continue.
UNHOLY NEXUS
The increasing criminalization of politics in this country has been a subject-matter of debate recently. Feelings of disquiet and concern have been expressed by many, including the politicians. Suggestions have been made to deal with this problem. The package of measures adopted, if any, must include delinking policing from politics. Without granting functional independence to the police, it would not be possible to break the nexus between politics and crime. Functional independence, however does not mean lack of accountability. The police are armed with tremendous powers and exercise wide influence over the lives of the citizens. There is, therefore, a definite need to impose proper checks on their powers. They must be accountable to the community for what they do and, what is more important, how they do it. It would, therefore, be wrong to question the propriety of political control and interference in all situations. The problem ultimately is one of making a distinction between the legitimate and illegitimate political influences.
The involvement of politics in policing must remain confined to providing adequate, well-equipped and an efficient police force to the community and to improving suitable effective checks on the powers of the police to ensure that they discharge their functions cleanly and in accordance with the law of the land. Any other control or interference must be treated as illegitimate. Functionally, the police must be independent and for this they must resist all illegitimate pressures. The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate control may appear to be thin but, with the passage of time, it may not remain so, particularly once there comes into existence an alert, mature and enlightened citizenry in the community.
(Published in the Statesman dated 28/10/1995)
Saturday, October 14, 1995
CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS
THE DECLINING STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE
For many years after Independence, the expectations of the citizens from the political system remained high. It is not as if no crime was committed by the politicians in the fifties and sixties. Some scandals did take place, but these did not lead to frustration and cynicism on a wide scale. They were dismissed as individual aberrations.
All this has changed. The process of criminalisation of politics has been gradual, marked by events and policies which led to the curtailment of inner-party democracy,
concentration of power in a few hands, devaluation of political and administrative
institutions and dismantling of value-based politics.
The first major event in this context was the Congress split of 1969, when a call was
given to vote according to ‘conscience’ during the presidential election. The next major event was the proclamation of Emergency- and the subsequent unbridled misuse of
authority by persons in power for self-aggrandisement. This was the period when the
culture of sycophancy reached its peak, when the bureaucracy became absolutely supine
and started crawling before its political masters. This was the era of commitment-not to the principles but to the principal actors on the political scene, not to ideals but to the idols or cult figures.
Caste has always played an important role during elections in India. Selection of
candidates and distribution of party tickets have often been governed by caste
considerations. However, the manipulation of the caste factor for political gains on a wide scale reflected in the attempts to ‘Mandalise’ politics by creating caste animosities added a sinister touch to the political scene. The next important milestone in the history of criminalisation of politics was the deliberate use of religion to promote fundamentalist attitudes and practices. It is this factor, which led to the emergence of a Frankenstein’s monster in the form of Bhindranwale in Punjab, the demolition of Babri masjid in UP,communal riots and bomb blasts in Bombay and other places and intensification of
terrorist violence in J& K and other States.
During the early years after Independence, it was hoped that the virus of casteism and communalism dividing Indian society would meet its eventual end once the modern
liberal institutions and value systems took root. This has not happened and, in fact, caste and religion have emerged as stronger dividing forces. It is mainly the manipulation of these forces for narrow political gains which has reinforced caste animosities and unleashed religious fundamentalism.
In the recent debate on criminalisation of politics, one argument was heard quite
frequently. It was pointed out that the problem was not peculiar to India and that scandals involving Presidents, Prime Ministers and other politician have occurred with regular frequency in many countries. This reminds one of the famous observations of Indira Gandhi that corruption was a global phenomenon. Nexus between politics and crime may exist in other countries too, but there is one important difference. In other countries,politicians have been forced to leave office and even been convicted on charges of having received kickbacks or of being associated with mafia gangs. This points towards the existence of an alert and enlightened public opinion and an effective criminal justice system in those countries.
In our country, the influence of public opinion as a potent instrument to regulate the behaviour of the politicians appears to have declined considerably. The politicians have become brazenly indifferent towards allegations of corruption and other crimes leveled against them. More than the failure of the system to prevent crime, it is its ineffectiveness in dealing with those who commit crimes, particularly when they happen to be influentialpersons, that is really responsible for the loss of public confidence. The tendency to release persons, even those who are involved in non-bailable cases, on bail, becomes more liberal when the accused happen to be politically influential. Most of them, in fact,succeed in obtaining anticipatory bail. This explains why so many legislators have numerous cases pending against them.
In the absence of strong public opinion and an honest and effective criminal justice
system, it is not at all surprising that no important politician occupying a seat of power in this country in recent times has even been forced to resign, what to talk of being proceeded against in a court of law. They have continued to commit their misdeeds with impunity.
(Published in the Indian Express dated 14th Oct 95)
For many years after Independence, the expectations of the citizens from the political system remained high. It is not as if no crime was committed by the politicians in the fifties and sixties. Some scandals did take place, but these did not lead to frustration and cynicism on a wide scale. They were dismissed as individual aberrations.
All this has changed. The process of criminalisation of politics has been gradual, marked by events and policies which led to the curtailment of inner-party democracy,
concentration of power in a few hands, devaluation of political and administrative
institutions and dismantling of value-based politics.
The first major event in this context was the Congress split of 1969, when a call was
given to vote according to ‘conscience’ during the presidential election. The next major event was the proclamation of Emergency- and the subsequent unbridled misuse of
authority by persons in power for self-aggrandisement. This was the period when the
culture of sycophancy reached its peak, when the bureaucracy became absolutely supine
and started crawling before its political masters. This was the era of commitment-not to the principles but to the principal actors on the political scene, not to ideals but to the idols or cult figures.
Caste has always played an important role during elections in India. Selection of
candidates and distribution of party tickets have often been governed by caste
considerations. However, the manipulation of the caste factor for political gains on a wide scale reflected in the attempts to ‘Mandalise’ politics by creating caste animosities added a sinister touch to the political scene. The next important milestone in the history of criminalisation of politics was the deliberate use of religion to promote fundamentalist attitudes and practices. It is this factor, which led to the emergence of a Frankenstein’s monster in the form of Bhindranwale in Punjab, the demolition of Babri masjid in UP,communal riots and bomb blasts in Bombay and other places and intensification of
terrorist violence in J& K and other States.
During the early years after Independence, it was hoped that the virus of casteism and communalism dividing Indian society would meet its eventual end once the modern
liberal institutions and value systems took root. This has not happened and, in fact, caste and religion have emerged as stronger dividing forces. It is mainly the manipulation of these forces for narrow political gains which has reinforced caste animosities and unleashed religious fundamentalism.
In the recent debate on criminalisation of politics, one argument was heard quite
frequently. It was pointed out that the problem was not peculiar to India and that scandals involving Presidents, Prime Ministers and other politician have occurred with regular frequency in many countries. This reminds one of the famous observations of Indira Gandhi that corruption was a global phenomenon. Nexus between politics and crime may exist in other countries too, but there is one important difference. In other countries,politicians have been forced to leave office and even been convicted on charges of having received kickbacks or of being associated with mafia gangs. This points towards the existence of an alert and enlightened public opinion and an effective criminal justice system in those countries.
In our country, the influence of public opinion as a potent instrument to regulate the behaviour of the politicians appears to have declined considerably. The politicians have become brazenly indifferent towards allegations of corruption and other crimes leveled against them. More than the failure of the system to prevent crime, it is its ineffectiveness in dealing with those who commit crimes, particularly when they happen to be influentialpersons, that is really responsible for the loss of public confidence. The tendency to release persons, even those who are involved in non-bailable cases, on bail, becomes more liberal when the accused happen to be politically influential. Most of them, in fact,succeed in obtaining anticipatory bail. This explains why so many legislators have numerous cases pending against them.
In the absence of strong public opinion and an honest and effective criminal justice
system, it is not at all surprising that no important politician occupying a seat of power in this country in recent times has even been forced to resign, what to talk of being proceeded against in a court of law. They have continued to commit their misdeeds with impunity.
(Published in the Indian Express dated 14th Oct 95)
Saturday, January 19, 1985
Performance Appraisal in Government
Motivating the Efficient
The government is the biggest employer in the country. Its success ultimately depends upon how well or how badly its employees perform on their jobs. But does the existing system of performance appraisal enable the government to identify the strengths and weakness of its employees and to take corrective action by way of promoting the strengths and removing the shortcomings.
The answer is a definite ‘no’. The system is not designed to improve the performance of the employees. It is used mainly as a means to discipline employees or as a source of collecting information required for certain administrative purpose, like taking decisions on promotion.
Most flaws in the existing system of performance evaluation in the government originate from a lack of clarity about basic objectives.
If one picks up any annual confidential report (ACR) form in use in a government department, one will notice a preponderance of personality-oriented traits like ‘bearing’, ‘zeal’, ‘keenness’, ‘liveliness’, ‘loyalty’, ‘personality’, ‘patience’, ‘sobriety’, ‘resourcefulness’, 'tact’, ‘temperament’ etc. The job centered traits are either conspicuous by their absence or their number is insignificant. Considerable scope is left for the element of subjectivity to creep into the appraisal report.
Take, for instance, ‘loyalty’. The assessment of such a trait may be coloured by the meaning that the reporting officer attaches to this term. In case his interpretation emphasises the personal loyalty of the employee towards him, it may result in his giving high grading to “yes men” in the department and low grading to those who are not loyal or dependable in that sense of the term.
Relevance Lacking
In a study entitled “performance appraisal in the police”, done by the bureau of police research and development in 1977, the traits figuring in the ACR forms of inspectors and Sub-inspectors which were in use in 26 states and Union territories were analysed. The study revealed that out of 79 traits which were being evaluated, only 11 could be regarded as directly related to the police work! Out of 24 ACR forms analysed in the study, as many as eight did not contain even a single trait which had any direct relevance to police work. It was noticed that either the same form which had been prescribed by the state governments for all government servants was being used by the police department, or the performance of all non-gazetted ranks in the police was being assessed on the basis of one form.
The ACR forms designed for higher ranks are no better. For instance, it is astounding to note that the annual performance of the all-India service officers, irrespective of ranks or posts, is assessed on the basis of an identical form which contains merely three columns: ‘state of health’; ‘general assessment’ and ‘integrity’. To equate the performance factors relevant to a job in the police with those of a job in some other government department- like health, education or forests- or not to make any distinction between the requirements of jobs at junior levels with those at seat junior levels with those at senior levels with the same department is surely illogical, if not absurd.
The technique which is used in government departments is close to what is known as the “graphic rating scale method”. At the end of every year, a confidential report form containing a list of personality of behavioural traits is presented to the rater, who is required to indicate the degree of the trait possessed by the employee by using pre-determined phrases or adjectives like ‘out-standing’, ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘satisfactory’, ‘poor’, ‘above average’, ‘average’.
The use of these summary expressions restricts the scope of the appraising officer to bring out the realities of employee performance.
The ACR form prescribed for all-India services does not require the appraising officers to use such expressions, but in their cases the entire evaluation is done under one broad heading of “general assessment”. When the grading is done on the basis of overall impression, it has a greater risk of being coloured by subjective considerations than the specific factors of traits-bound appraisal. It also does not provide a complete picture of the strengths and weakness of officer in respect of specific factors relevant to his job.
Overall Grading
This summary overall grading is done in government departments for determining the promotional potential of the employee, but the degree of fitness for promotion is invariably considered again by departmental promotion committees. Besides being superfluous, this practice of doing overall grading misses one important point: no employee is either completely outstanding or absolutely poor in respect of all the performance factors relevance to his job; even if it were possible to grade some employees as ‘outstanding’ and some as ‘poor’, it would be extremely difficult to grade the performance two extremes. The distinguishing of those who fall in between these line between ‘outstanding’ and ‘very good’ or between ‘above average’ and ‘average’, for instance, is too thin to be drawn or distinguished clearly.
Considerable research has been done in the field of management to improve the traditional methods of appraisal in order to reduce the element of subjectivity. Not much use has been made by government departments of such research results. On a recommendation made by the administrative reforms commission many years ago, the government had introduced a method known as “self-appraisal method”. The method requires the employee to appraise his own performance, which is supplemented by a rating done by the supervisor. There are some obvious advantages of this method, but it is being used only in the cases of a few ranks. The method has not been adopted in the cases of all-India service officers.
At present, the evaluation report is written at the end of the calendar or financial year. Since no record is kept about the performance of the employee, the reporting officer is forced to evaluate either on the basis of his overall impression about the employee’s general performance or to fall back upon his memory. Two most common errors resulting from this practice are ‘halo error’, which arises when all the traits are assessed on the basis of an overall impression, and the ‘error of over-weighting’ which arises when the rater is unduly influenced by events nearer the end of the rating period.
Research says that it is possible to reduce the chances of some of these errors affecting evaluation reports provided effective use is made of another method-known as the “critical incidents methods”. This method requires the evaluation to be done on the basis of objective data about the performance of an employee collected in systematic and regular manner. A running record of specific, critical incidents indicating the employee’s good or poor performance is kept as they observed continuously throughout the year. It is only the observed performance which is required to be recorded and not the judgment or opinion of the rater about any particular trait.
Subjectivity Reduced
The record can also be utilized periodically for the purpose of counselling subordinate officers about their performance and problems. The success of the method depends on the closeness and quality of supervision that is exercised and on a faithful and immediate recording of incidents as they are observed. Besides serving as an aide memoire to the reporting officer at the time of writing the appraisal report, the use of this method reduces the element of subjectivity by forcing the appraiser to base his report on recorded facts relating to performance rather than on subjective opinion about the quality of character traits.
A cardinal principle on which the modern approach to performance evaluation is based is that the results of appraisal must be intimated to the employee. If the objective of the system is to motivate the employees to improve their performance and to develop their growth potential, then it is necessary that they must be fully informed about the way their performance has been appraised by their superiors.
It is not as if the importance of feeding back to the subordinates the appraisal information is not recognised by the government departments. The system, as it exists, does recognise the need to communicate to them this information, but only in so far as it relates to the negative aspects of their performance. In other words, only that part of the report remains unknown to the subordinate which contains commendatory remarks about his behaviour and performance.
In case the entire report does not contain any adverse entry, the employee remains completely in the dark about how he has measured upto the standards of the job or to the expectations of his senior officers. What is not recognised in following this system is that the knowledge on the part of the subordinate that his good work has been appreciated by his seniors works as a highly motivational influence on him.
The system as it exists does more harm than good. While a good ACR does not motivate the subordinate to do better (as it remains unknown), a single bad entry in the ACR develops in him a feeling of grievance. The subordinate starts imputing motives to the reporting officer in his representation. This results in vitiating the atmosphere and in damaging inter-personal relationships.
Any attempt to improve the exiting system of performance evaluation in the government must start by redefining its basic objective. In so far as the operational philosophy of the system is concerned, it must not be merely reward and punishment. It should rather be aimed to improve the performance of employees.
( Published in the Times of India dated 19.01.1983)
The government is the biggest employer in the country. Its success ultimately depends upon how well or how badly its employees perform on their jobs. But does the existing system of performance appraisal enable the government to identify the strengths and weakness of its employees and to take corrective action by way of promoting the strengths and removing the shortcomings.
The answer is a definite ‘no’. The system is not designed to improve the performance of the employees. It is used mainly as a means to discipline employees or as a source of collecting information required for certain administrative purpose, like taking decisions on promotion.
Most flaws in the existing system of performance evaluation in the government originate from a lack of clarity about basic objectives.
If one picks up any annual confidential report (ACR) form in use in a government department, one will notice a preponderance of personality-oriented traits like ‘bearing’, ‘zeal’, ‘keenness’, ‘liveliness’, ‘loyalty’, ‘personality’, ‘patience’, ‘sobriety’, ‘resourcefulness’, 'tact’, ‘temperament’ etc. The job centered traits are either conspicuous by their absence or their number is insignificant. Considerable scope is left for the element of subjectivity to creep into the appraisal report.
Take, for instance, ‘loyalty’. The assessment of such a trait may be coloured by the meaning that the reporting officer attaches to this term. In case his interpretation emphasises the personal loyalty of the employee towards him, it may result in his giving high grading to “yes men” in the department and low grading to those who are not loyal or dependable in that sense of the term.
Relevance Lacking
In a study entitled “performance appraisal in the police”, done by the bureau of police research and development in 1977, the traits figuring in the ACR forms of inspectors and Sub-inspectors which were in use in 26 states and Union territories were analysed. The study revealed that out of 79 traits which were being evaluated, only 11 could be regarded as directly related to the police work! Out of 24 ACR forms analysed in the study, as many as eight did not contain even a single trait which had any direct relevance to police work. It was noticed that either the same form which had been prescribed by the state governments for all government servants was being used by the police department, or the performance of all non-gazetted ranks in the police was being assessed on the basis of one form.
The ACR forms designed for higher ranks are no better. For instance, it is astounding to note that the annual performance of the all-India service officers, irrespective of ranks or posts, is assessed on the basis of an identical form which contains merely three columns: ‘state of health’; ‘general assessment’ and ‘integrity’. To equate the performance factors relevant to a job in the police with those of a job in some other government department- like health, education or forests- or not to make any distinction between the requirements of jobs at junior levels with those at seat junior levels with those at senior levels with the same department is surely illogical, if not absurd.
The technique which is used in government departments is close to what is known as the “graphic rating scale method”. At the end of every year, a confidential report form containing a list of personality of behavioural traits is presented to the rater, who is required to indicate the degree of the trait possessed by the employee by using pre-determined phrases or adjectives like ‘out-standing’, ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘satisfactory’, ‘poor’, ‘above average’, ‘average’.
The use of these summary expressions restricts the scope of the appraising officer to bring out the realities of employee performance.
The ACR form prescribed for all-India services does not require the appraising officers to use such expressions, but in their cases the entire evaluation is done under one broad heading of “general assessment”. When the grading is done on the basis of overall impression, it has a greater risk of being coloured by subjective considerations than the specific factors of traits-bound appraisal. It also does not provide a complete picture of the strengths and weakness of officer in respect of specific factors relevant to his job.
Overall Grading
This summary overall grading is done in government departments for determining the promotional potential of the employee, but the degree of fitness for promotion is invariably considered again by departmental promotion committees. Besides being superfluous, this practice of doing overall grading misses one important point: no employee is either completely outstanding or absolutely poor in respect of all the performance factors relevance to his job; even if it were possible to grade some employees as ‘outstanding’ and some as ‘poor’, it would be extremely difficult to grade the performance two extremes. The distinguishing of those who fall in between these line between ‘outstanding’ and ‘very good’ or between ‘above average’ and ‘average’, for instance, is too thin to be drawn or distinguished clearly.
Considerable research has been done in the field of management to improve the traditional methods of appraisal in order to reduce the element of subjectivity. Not much use has been made by government departments of such research results. On a recommendation made by the administrative reforms commission many years ago, the government had introduced a method known as “self-appraisal method”. The method requires the employee to appraise his own performance, which is supplemented by a rating done by the supervisor. There are some obvious advantages of this method, but it is being used only in the cases of a few ranks. The method has not been adopted in the cases of all-India service officers.
At present, the evaluation report is written at the end of the calendar or financial year. Since no record is kept about the performance of the employee, the reporting officer is forced to evaluate either on the basis of his overall impression about the employee’s general performance or to fall back upon his memory. Two most common errors resulting from this practice are ‘halo error’, which arises when all the traits are assessed on the basis of an overall impression, and the ‘error of over-weighting’ which arises when the rater is unduly influenced by events nearer the end of the rating period.
Research says that it is possible to reduce the chances of some of these errors affecting evaluation reports provided effective use is made of another method-known as the “critical incidents methods”. This method requires the evaluation to be done on the basis of objective data about the performance of an employee collected in systematic and regular manner. A running record of specific, critical incidents indicating the employee’s good or poor performance is kept as they observed continuously throughout the year. It is only the observed performance which is required to be recorded and not the judgment or opinion of the rater about any particular trait.
Subjectivity Reduced
The record can also be utilized periodically for the purpose of counselling subordinate officers about their performance and problems. The success of the method depends on the closeness and quality of supervision that is exercised and on a faithful and immediate recording of incidents as they are observed. Besides serving as an aide memoire to the reporting officer at the time of writing the appraisal report, the use of this method reduces the element of subjectivity by forcing the appraiser to base his report on recorded facts relating to performance rather than on subjective opinion about the quality of character traits.
A cardinal principle on which the modern approach to performance evaluation is based is that the results of appraisal must be intimated to the employee. If the objective of the system is to motivate the employees to improve their performance and to develop their growth potential, then it is necessary that they must be fully informed about the way their performance has been appraised by their superiors.
It is not as if the importance of feeding back to the subordinates the appraisal information is not recognised by the government departments. The system, as it exists, does recognise the need to communicate to them this information, but only in so far as it relates to the negative aspects of their performance. In other words, only that part of the report remains unknown to the subordinate which contains commendatory remarks about his behaviour and performance.
In case the entire report does not contain any adverse entry, the employee remains completely in the dark about how he has measured upto the standards of the job or to the expectations of his senior officers. What is not recognised in following this system is that the knowledge on the part of the subordinate that his good work has been appreciated by his seniors works as a highly motivational influence on him.
The system as it exists does more harm than good. While a good ACR does not motivate the subordinate to do better (as it remains unknown), a single bad entry in the ACR develops in him a feeling of grievance. The subordinate starts imputing motives to the reporting officer in his representation. This results in vitiating the atmosphere and in damaging inter-personal relationships.
Any attempt to improve the exiting system of performance evaluation in the government must start by redefining its basic objective. In so far as the operational philosophy of the system is concerned, it must not be merely reward and punishment. It should rather be aimed to improve the performance of employees.
( Published in the Times of India dated 19.01.1983)
Monday, August 3, 1981
CONTROLLING CRIME
POLICE LIMITATIONS IN CURBING CRIME
The rise in crime is almost worldwide phenomenon. Our people are naturally concerned at the trend in India, though the increase in crime here is not yet at the rate seen in some advanced countries like the United States. The fact is that the problem of crime control is seldom considered dispassionately. Reports of crime evoke emotional reactions and in the public furore that follows, the objective factors behind the increasing trend of crime either get obscured or sidetracked by political considerations.
When there is an upsurge in criminal activities or a particularly heinous crime is committed, the public tends to blame the police. The general tendency is to hold the police solely responsible for checking crime. This attitude is reinforced by the manner in which the police react to public criticism. They either quote statistics which are not too impressive or point out the inadequacies of manpower and equipment at their disposal. This fails to satisfy the public and thus the cycle goes on.
Picture Elsewhere
The truth is that the problem cannot be solved merely by providing more funds, manpower and equipment to the police. The United States, with its tremendous resources and with administration allocating more and more funds to the law enforcement agencies and equipping them with the latest tools in science and technology, has not been able to arrest the escalating crime rate. In 1970 the crime rate per lakh of population was 3,984.5. In 1980 it rose to 5,899.9. In the United Kingdom, which is reputed to have one of the best police forces in the world, the number of indictable offences known to the police in 1961 was
8,06,900. By 1971 it had more than doubled (16,66,000) and by 1978 more than tripled (25,62,000). Crime per lakh of population in UK was only 1,094 in 1950, while by 1978 it had gone up to 4,878. During this period, there has been considerable increase in manpower and other resources of the police forces there.
The resources of the police in India have also vastly increased after Independence. In 1951-52, the revenue expenditure incurred on this head was only Rs. 58.73 crore. By 1978-79, it had gone up to Rs. 827.18 crore, thereby registering and increase of 1308.45 per cent during the period.
The total strength of the police in States/Union Territories it 1951 was only 4,67,740 but by 1978 it had increased to 8,05,821. The position in terms of transport and communication facilities and scientific aids for investigation has also considerable improved since Independence. However crime has continued to rise. In 1948, only 6,25,909 cognisable cases of crime were registered under the Indian Penal Code. The volume of crime per lakh of population in 1951 was 180. The number of cognizable offences under the IPC had increased to 13,44,968 in 1978 and the volume of crime per lakh of population worked out to 210.7. If the offences registered under local laws are also included in the figures total
cognisable crime in 1978 was to the extent of 41,37,191 cases.
This brings us to an important fact. The ability of the police to control crime by itself is limited, more so in a democratic society. It is not just a question of will or competence to curb crime. Some of the crimes arise out of factors over which the police have little or no control. This aspect can be discussed on a theoretical as well as practical plane.
No Single Theory
Let us first view the problem in a broad perspective. Despite considerable research on this subject, no single theory has so far emerged to explain convincingly the phenomenon of crime and its causes. There is, however, a wide consensus amongst criminologists about certain conditions or factors which stimulate crime. Increasing incidence is generally associated with urbanisation, hard living conditions, unemployment, inequality of opportunities, decline in the standards of morality, uprooting of traditional institutions and values resulting in a feeling of alienation, etc. The police have nothing to do with the emergence of these criminogenic factors. Nor do they have any control over them.
The task force on the police set up by the President’s Commission on law enforcement and administration of justice in the US (1967) said in its report: “On the whole, they (the police) must accept society as it is – a society in which parents fail to raise their children as lawabiding citizens, in which schools fail to educate them to assume adult roles, and in which economy is not geared to provide them with jobs.” The important role that the informal instruments or structures of social control represented by the traditional institution of family,
school and religion and ethical values play in maintaining the fabric of society intact needs to be recognized and they must not be allowed to crumble down. To the extent we can retain our healthy traits, values and institutions, the criminogenic potential of certain developments may be neutralised. So, it is necessary that we plan and regulate our process of development in such a manner as to enable society to absorb, and not succumb to, the shock of rapid
changes.
Social Defence
The model of planning that we have followed so far has concentrated mainly on accelerating the pace of economic development. We have not paid sufficient attention to the spin-off effects of development on the total social system. It is high time that planning in the field of social defence and criminal justice system became an integral part of national planning, as the UN has been urging its member countries for quite sometime now.
Coming to the brass tacks, it is widely acknowledged that all the crimes committed in a society do not come to the notice of the police. Research done in foreign countries has shown that only about 10 to15 per cent of crime committed in a community is reported to the police. Even in the most developed countries, the police are not able to dispose of more than 50 per cent of the crime that comes to their notice. Out of the cases ultimately referred to the courts, only a small percentage ends in conviction. A large number of offenders get away with it and this naturally reduces the deterrent effect of the police force. The police are
only one part of the criminal justice system and success in tackling crimes also depends on the effectiveness of the other agencies involved.
The different agencies in law enforcement do not always work in a coordinated manner. Sometimes they work at cross-purposes. The functioning of the bail system and the difference in the approach of the police and the courts towards this provision is one example of this. While the police think that releasing more and more offenders on bail, including those accused of having committed heinous offences, results in increasing crime, many jurists feel that denial of bail and consequent incarceration almost amounts to judging an accused guilty before giving him an opportunity to prove his innocence.
The way the criminal justice system has been functioning in the country, it has failed to instill in the minds of people the healthy fear that law cannot be trifled with. If crime has to controlled, justice must not only be done but done speedily. This is not happening and the problem of pendency of cases under trial has assumed alarming proportions. As many as 54,95,582 criminal cases were pending in different types of courts at the end of 1979. It has to be impressed upon all that law has not only a long arm but also strong teeth. Unfortunately, the contrary impression prevails.
Respect For Law
There has been a steady erosion of respect towards law and authority in the country. Some people behave as if they are above the law of the land and can get away with anything. It would be unrealistic to expect that law will always be enforced in a fair and impartial manner as the inequalities inherent in out society and the types of culture they breed are bound to be reflected to some extent in the working of different institutions. But as long as there is open defiance of law by some people, and if the administration does not even take cognizance of
cases where there is a clear nexus between criminals and some influential persons, who, by interfering in the working of the police and through other means manage to thwart the process of justice, crime control will remain an unrealised dream. However, the steady growth in crime is challenge to be faced by the whole society. The police of course must be in a better performance than they have been doing so far, but to think that policemen alone can wipe out crime is to delude ourselves.
( Published in the Indian Express dated 03.08.1981)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)