DISHONOURING THE POLICE UNIFORM

Disgracing the Policeman

The other day, the media reported two incidents from Delhi. In one, a foreign woman slapped a policeman after he refused to allow her to enter into an auditorium where a book release function was being held.  In the other, two traffic policemen were beaten up in Delhi by a group of people for stopping an underage person from driving a car.  A traffic policeman lying on the road, with the group beating him and trying to trample over his supine body, presented a very sad and pitiable sight. 

The number of incidents, in which police personnel are humiliated, abused and even beaten in public has been rising day by day.  Politicians of course do it with brazenness and impunity. The Delhi Chief Minister does not hesitate in calling the policeman a “thulla.” The Samajwadi party’s supremo warns a senior police officer to mend his ways. “Sudhar jao” is a very mild form of threat. A minister in Akhilesh Yadav’s government had threatened to strip “any SHO of his uniform in 24 hours... if he doesn't listen to us." Another minister in the same government warned policemen not to remain on their seats in his presence. Two years ago, a Maharashtra police officer was assaulted by legislators in the Assembly premises.  A few years ago, a Shiromani Akali Dal leader in Amritsar shot dead a Punjab police officer who had protested against his daughter being harassed by the politician and his friends. Similar reports have come from other states.  These are only few of such incidents which have happened in the recent past.

Politicians do not hesitate to disgrace and ill treat policemen in public.  In many cases, it is done deliberately.  The policeman has always been regarded by ordinary citizens as a symbol of authority.  By humiliating him in public, it is easy to disrobe him of his authority and appropriate it yourself.  It becomes an easy means to add to your illegitimate power.  It also enables the politician to function as a middleman to peddle his influence with the police and help some people in getting relief in cases in which they are involved.  It reduces police capability to deal effectively with violations of law in which the politician and his cronies indulge.

What the politicians do does not leave the public untouched.  They also get emboldened and start misbehaving with the policemen.  There have been many incidents where the members of public have often prevented police personnel   from carrying out their duties by surrounding and beating them.

Assaults on police personnel are becoming quite commonplace.  This is happening despite there being fairly stringent provisions in law against such behavior.  According to Section 332 IPC, anyone voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant to deter him from doing his duty is punishable with imprisonment for a term up to three years or with fine or both. If the hurt is grievous, the punishment, as per Section 333, can extend to ten years.  Data indicating number of such cases prosecuted by the police and their trial results is not available.  However, the spurt in such incidents shows that the police are not using such provisions of law effectively, particularly when the accused   happen to be connected closely or even remotely to the party in power.  In other cases, the deterrent effect is mitigated by the enormous time taken by our courts in deciding cases.  All this leads to creating a climate of lawlessness, which further encourages people to take law in their own hands.

  

We in India do not have faith in policemen, particularly those of lower ranks. An argument is often made that the lower ranks by their performance and behavior have not succeeded in dislodging distrust from the public and legislators’ mind.  The argument may be valid, but what have we done to change the system and its culture that contribute to producing this type of performance?

We have not shown a proper understanding of the role of policeman in society and the conditions in which that role is being performed.    He has a poor image that leads to a low status, which in turn perpetuates that image. The vicious circle keeps on widening the existing chasm between the police and the community. This environment produces two results.  One, it contributes to encouraging assaults on policemen.  Two, genuine sacrifices made by police personnel while performing their duty do not receive adequate recognition.  On an average, about 850 policemen are losing their lives every year in line of duty.  A policeman is a symbol of law and state authority and when he dies at the hands of a criminal or gets beaten by  lumpen elements, a part of our system of rule of law gets badly damaged.  Every such incident leads to the erosion of state authority and that is what must not be allowed to happen as easily and as frequently as it is happening now. 

Assaults on police personnel lower not only their morale, but also lessen their ability to handle confrontations with public with professional calm and competence.  The incident where a traffic policeman in Delhi was shown throwing a brick at a woman rankled many in the public, but most of the peer group of that constable felt that what happened was regrettable, but could be explained as a response to a fairly abusive and aggressive offender, who had clearly violated traffic laws and who later turned out to be liar too. 

It is generally said that the public think very poorly of the policeman on the street.  This is true, but it is also true that an average policeman has an equally poor opinion of the community he serves.  What is needed is to find ways and means of removing this distrust and bringing the two closer to each other.

IS INDIA EMERGENCY PROOF?

CAN EMERGENCY OCCUR AGAIN?
                               
Mr. L. K Advani’s observations that the forces that can crush democracy are stronger and emergency can happen again have stirred up considerable controversy.

Mr Advani, when questioned on this subject later in a TV programme, was not very convincing in explaining his remarks. He felt like this because there was no sense of atonement either on the part of the Congress or Gandhi family for the Emergency and no assurance that it would not happen again.  It is true that the Congress has not expressed any regrets for imposition of Emergency.  But even if they atone for this unjustifiable act, how does it ensure that it will not happen again?

One fact must be recognised clearly.  Emergency was not merely imposed wrongly; it survived and remained in operation for about nineteen months. This was one of the darkest periods of post Independent India during which thousands of citizens were arbitrarily arrested, untold atrocities were committed by people in positions of power and citizens were deprived of their fundamental rights. It happened not merely because of the presence of an authoritarian leader at the helm of affairs, but because the entire system had been subverted. Before the Emergency was imposed, Indira Gandhi had succeeded in propagating and promoting the idea of an unswervingly loyal bureaucracy and a committed judiciary.  The culture of sycophancy in the Congress had already established that “Indira is India and India is Indira.”  The way media caved in, it is clear that they had lost before the battle began.  Even the judiciary, including the apex court, fell in line.  In such an environment, it was easy not merely to impose Emergency but also to sustain it.  The President could sign the Emergency proclamation even when the Cabinet had not discussed, what to talk of approving, it.

The only official record of what happened during the Emergency was the report of the Shah Commission of Inquiry, which was destroyed on the orders of Smt. Indira Gandhi when she returned to power in 1980. The Commission studied the circumstances prevailing at the time the Emergency was imposed. Of the various special features gleaned by the Commission from official records, four need to be mentioned here.  One, on the economic front, there was nothing alarming at that time.  Two, the Home Ministry had received no reports from the state governments indicating any significant deterioration in the law and order situation in the period immediately preceding the proclamation of Emergency.  Three, the Home Ministry had not sent any report to the Prime Minister, expressing its concern about the internal situation prevailing in the country.  Four, the decision to impose Emergency was taken in a hush hush manner.  While the Director, I B, the Home secretary, the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretary to the Prime Minister did not even know about it, R K Dhavan, the then Additional Private Secretary to the Prime Minister had been associated with the promulgation of  Emergency from the early stage.

It is thus obvious that the circumstances prevailing at that time did not warrant the imposition of Emergency.  Much worse law and order disturbances have been witnessed in the country since those dark days. What is remarkable is not the imposition of Emergency, but the ease with which it could be enforced.  This ease was acquired because the system had been subverted and important institutions failed to respond. The role of institutions like the media and judiciary has received considerable attention, but the responsibility of one important institution in enforcing Emergency i.e the police has not been adequately debated.

The police was one agency that was highly misused.  The police and the magistracy did all that they were asked to do without bothering about the legality of orders given by their political masters.  They fabricated warrants and records to carry out illegal arrests and detentions under MISA and other laws.  The Shah Commission viewed with anguish the “evidence of patent collusion between the police and the Magistracy in denying the citizens their basic freedoms by arrests and detentions on grounds which were now admitted to be non-existent or deliberately invented.” The Commission felt that “employing the police to the advantage of any political party is a sure source of subverting the rule of law” and the government must therefore take steps to insulate the police from the politics of the country. The National Police Commission’s recommendations on the subject and the Supreme Court’s famous judgement of September22, 2006 did not help in redeeming the situation.

 The way the CBI was manipulated and misused during the Emergency is now a part of history, but its record since then has not been praiseworthy.  It has functioned as a parrot on more than one occasion.  So far as the state police performance is concerned, it again does not inspire any confidence.  Even the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in April, 2002 admitted that “today we have a police, which is politicized and politically polarized.  For it has become a pawn in the hands of its masters.” It is here that the seeds of future danger lie

To prevent Emergency from occurring again, what is required is to create circumstances where it cannot be enforced with the ease with which it was done.  It is in this background that the need for a reformed police force becomes obvious. The police, as Gary T Marx, a social studies scholar has  said,  can be a major threat to democracy just as it can be a great support to it. According to him, the “Police are a central element of a democratic society. Indeed one element in defining such a society is a police force that 1) is subject to the rule of law, rather than the wishes of a powerful leader or party, 2) can intervene in the life of citizens only under limited and carefully controlled circumstances and 3) is publicly accountable “   If these conditions are not met, the threat of Emergency will continue to loom large.

WEALTH & CELEBRITY DRIVEN JUSTICE

Justice Can Be Influenced

The judiciary, and that also higher judiciary, has been very much in the news during the last few weeks.

 First the Salman Khan case, where it takes the lower court 13 years to   hold the actor guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in a hit and run case, but it takes the higher court only three hours to suspend the sentence and release him on bail.  Then the Jayalalithaa case, where the trial court convicts the lady of possessing disproportionate assets and sentences her to four years imprisonment and Rs 100 crore fine on September 27, 2014 after the case dragged on for 18 years.  The High Court disposes off the case on May11, 2015.  The public prosecutor appointed at the eleventh hour says that he was not given an opportunity to present his case.

These are not the only cases that have created an impression in the public mind that the criminal justice system in this country is wealth and influence driven.  Sanjay Dutt has been let out on parole on numerous occasions. Lalu Prasad is out on bail even after being convicted in a corruption case.  Now Ramalinga Raju has also been released on bail.  Some earlier cases that immediately  come to mind are those of underworld don Babloo Srivastava, who was convicted for life term on July 3, 2006, whose appeal was heard by Delhi High Court on July 12, 2006 and who was acquitted on February 23, 2007.  Ansal brothers were convicted for 2 year jail term on November 21, 2007, but secured bail on November 23, 2007 and finally the High Court reduced the jail term to one year on December 20, 2008.

These cases  show that the rich and influential people either get bail after being accused of committing crime or are acquitted of all charges. There is nothing wrong on being released on bail.  Bail and not jail, they say, is the principle on which the system of legal jurisprudence is based.  If that is the principle, why is it that out of 3,85,135 jail population in the country on January 1, 2014, as many as 2,54,857 (66.2% of total inmates) were undertrial prisoners?   A majority of them were inside because they were either denied bail or failed to post bail bond.   A study done by the Law Commission of India on Law Relating to Arrest in November, 2000 showed that the percentage of undertrial prisoners in the country was unusually high and most of them were there because they were too poor to post bail or furnish securities.

What about the appeals, which in some cases are heard with speed, while in others it takes umpteen number of years for cases to be heard.    On 31.3.2014, about 2.79 crore cases were pending with different courts in the country at the end of the first quarter of 2014.  Out of these, 2,73,60,814 cases were pending with District and Subordinate Courts, 4,47,903 with High Courts and 65,970 with the Supreme Court.   A large number of cases pending with higher courts are appeal cases.

All these cases and statistics merely prove what the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had reported in July 2007: “An equally disturbing perception of the people is about the role the money and influence play in criminal justice administration. In common man’s perception, there are two standards of justice in the country, one for the rich and powerful and the other for the poor and underprivileged sections.”

The farcical working of the courts in this country with antiquated laws and procedures have been brilliantly shown in the recent national award winning Marathi film called “Court.” Despite all the material that exists in the reports of commissions and committees and also films (even those with catchphrase like ‘tareekh pe tareekh’), the justice system has remained one of the most neglected areas of governance in the country.  It appears that good governance has remained merely a political slogan.

While talking of politics, a side issue concerning Jayalalithaa’s case needs to be discussed.  Immediately after the acquittal order became public, the PM Narendra Modi was the first political leader to congratulate her on her release.  Whatever might have been the political considerations behind this move, a question that needs to be asked is: was it proper for the Prime Minister of the country to congratulate a person who till a few hours ago was a convict in a corruption case? The High Court’s judgement is not the end of the case. The Karnataka government or the petitioner can appeal against the judgement in the apex court.

When a congratulatory message is sent, it stands not merely for courteous behavior; it also indicates a feeling of sympathy for the person who is being congratulated.  Along with Jayalalithaa, the Prime Minister also appears to have heaved a sigh of relief on her being acquitted. It appears that he had carefully considered what Edmund Burke had advised long ago: “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”
   

I AM A CHARLIE BUT NOT A BAGA

I AM A CHARLIE BUT NOT A BAGA

The world witnessed two major incidents of terrorist violence during the first fortnight of this month.  The global response to the two tragedies was entirely different.

First, the incident that is very well known.  On Wednesday, the 7th of the month, two Islamic terrorists stormed the office of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, known for its cartoons lampooning established institutions and religions, including Islam and killed 12 staff members of the weekly. Later five more civilians lost their lives.  It led to one of the biggest deployment of security forces in France to hunt the killers and other terrorists holding hostages in a market.

The country mourned and received condolence messages from all over the world. There was a huge outpouring of sympathy for victims and anger against the deed and the doers.  The incident also gave rise to some racial hatred, with Twitter going viral with the message “kick them out”.

“I am Charlie” became a sign of defiance and shared aims.  The eventful week ended with an estimated 3.7 million people marching on the streets in a show of unity and solidarity. The world leaders from more than 40 countries, including the British Prime Minister, German Chancellor, EU President, Israeli Prime Minister, Palestinian President and Jordan King participated in the unity march, enthusing the French President to declare “Today, Paris is the capital of the world.”  The event became so big and important that the US administration felt sorry for not sending a higher ranking representative to the unity march.

Now, come to the second incident that occurred in Nigeria.  Boko Haram, a well known Jihadi insurgent group operating in that country, stormed a small town called Baga and indiscriminately killed civilians. According to Amnesty International, 2000 persons were killed in the attack that began on January 3, making it the “deadliest attack in the militant’s six-year insurgency.”  The town was virtually "wiped off the map."

The tragedy of Baga was thus much bigger that what happened in Paris.  Now, how did the world react?

Compared to Paris, the calamity of Baga was virtually ignored by the governments in almost all countries.  One did not hear of many condolence messages being received by the government or people in Nigeria.  In fact, the funniest part of the episode is that while the Nigerian President sent condolence message for the victims of Paris, he is alleged to have remained silent on the depredations of Boko Haram in Baga. The Nigerian government has failed to deal with the insurgent group effectively and has often been accused of hiding its failure by reducing the intensity of Boko Haram’s violent activities and the resultant loss of life and property suffered by its people.  This lack of transparency was also noticed in the handling of the incident of kidnapping of school girls. Does it, however, mean that the quality of state involvement in dealing with a crisis situation will determine how the rest of the world will react to it? It is for the governments in the advanced countries to answer this question.

Differences in the incidence and frequency of such incidents is probably an important factor in showing how the world will respond.  What happened in Paris was an occasional incident as compared to the violence by Boko Haram, which occurs often enough to be considered normal and routine.

Besides the governments, the international media also did not pay adequate heed to what happened at Baga.  If Paris saw a deluge of media coverage, Baga suffered a draught, which led someone to raise a very pertinent question: “Is one massacre more newsworthy than another?”  If one is guided by the scale of disaster suffered by two places, Baga should have received more media coverage than Paris, but that did not happen. Why?

 One explanation given is that Paris is easily accessible, has enough communication facilities and is less risky as compared to Baga.  This argument is not very convincing, as journalists have reported from more inaccessible and risky areas than Baga. In fact, some of the best media reportage has come from war zones and conflict ridden spots. We also talk of the present world as a globalised and a shrunk place. In such a world, one cannot regard any area as isolated and neglect one’s professional duty to cover events there.

How then does one explain the neglect by the international community and the media to the ugly tragedy of Baga as compared to the way they treated the event at Paris?  In my view, there are two main explanations.  One is that response to the violence in Paris was inspired by the lofty principle of freedom of expression, which is an important pillar on which the democratic world rests.  Any negligence towards upholding this principle shakes its very foundations. That is why all the debate that took place in different countries following the Paris massacre focused mainly on the need to espouse and defend the right to freedom of expression. No such exalted code triggered off the violence at Baga.

While the first explanation sounds admirable, the second one is somewhat base.  An unbiased examination leads to an unavoidable conclusion that an element of racism did play a part in shaping the response to the two events. As someone commented rightly: “Nigerians are black Africans. French are predominantly white Europeans. Somewhere in those two statements is an explanation as to why there was much more concern over the death of 17 people in Paris and zero concern over the deaths of 2000 people in Baga.” This bias was supplemented by the rich and poor or the strong and weak divide that existed between the two countries.

SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT ABOUT DIRECTOR CBI

Does Supreme Court’s Judgement Protect CBI’s Reputation?
                                                                   
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court, directing Ranjit Sinha to recuse himself from the 2G spectrum case, has evoked a mixed response.  While the order assures that the court will not allow the investigation of this important case to be compromised, it simultaneously refrains from explicitly stating detailed reasons for its order.  The idea of not doing so, in the words of the court, is twofold- to protect the faith in the institution and the reputation of the director. In reality, it does neither.
Over the last few years, we have heard enormous criticism of the way the CBI has been functioning, most of it coming not merely from the opposition parties but from the judiciary too.  The apex court did its first comprehensive examination of the organisation’s functioning in the Vineet Narain case in the nineties of the last century. In that case it pulled up the CBI for showing “inertia” to investigate offences involving influential persons and directed it “not to report the progress of the investigations to the person occupying the highest office in the political executive.”  The court also suggested institutional and other arrangements aimed at insulating the CBI from outside influences.

All this did not prove to be of much help as the government did not implement the judgement fully and honestly.  The CBI remained vulnerable to outside pressures and continued to face stringent criticism from the court in many cases for its biased functioning.  The court slammed the investigating agency for dilly dallying in disproportionate assets cases of Mayawati and Mulayam Singh during the last decade and more recently for dragging its feet in probing the 2G case and coal block allocations during 2006-09.  Ranjit Sinha was in charge of the CBI when the court called the agency a “caged parrot.”

In short, the reputation of the institution has been besmirched over a period of time and the conduct of Sinha in the present case tarnishes it further. The reticence of the court by withholding details produces two outcomes. One, it enables the director to brazen it out and remain glued to his chair. Two, it gives rise to an impression that there is considerable evidence of Sinha’s misdemeanors.  If it is revealed, it will hurt the credibility of the organisation and its director. By withholding information, the result achieved is the opposite of what the court wants.

The government too has been somewhat reluctant to take action. Though Sinha was appointed by UPA despite objections by the BJP, the silence of the ruling party during the few months when the diary at Sinha’s residence had become public knowledge is not understandable. The government always has powers to probe into suspected misbehavior and take disciplinary action.

Besides other rules and regulations, there is a Code of Behavior for police officers prescribed by the National Police Commission and accepted by the government.  Article 3 of this Code stipulates that no police officer shall conduct himself in such a manner as is “reasonably likely to bring discredit” to the “reputation of the police force or of the police service.” Ranjit Sinha’s conduct has definitely brought discredit to himself as well as to the organisation. There is no point in saying, as some retired directors of the CBI have done in the media that the court’s order brings only the chief of the agency into disrepute and not the organisation. The image of any establishment, particularly a hierarchical organisation like the police, is made or marred to a great extent by the policies, priorities and conduct of its chief.


While deliberating the coal scam status report, the apex court had said that their “first exercise will be to liberate CBI from political interference.”  This has not happened.  The government has always been reluctant to do this exercise earnestly.  Neither the UPA nor the present NDA has come out with any law or taken other measures that will make the CBI a professionally efficient and impartial organisation.  The danger is that this Ranjit Sinha episode may provide a handle to the government to further tighten its control over the investigating agency.  Arun Jaitley has already started talking of a “gap in law” that allows Ranjit Sinha to remain in chair and the government’s inability to do anything in this regard. The gap to which Jaitley is referring is contained in sub-section 4 B (i) of section 26 of the Central Vigilance Act of 2003, according to which Director, Delhi Special Police Establishment shall “continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years from the date on which he assumes office.” Mr. Jaitley does not talk about the other sub section of this section, which clearly suggests that the director can be transferred with the “previous consent of the Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4A” This is the committee that recommends names to government for selection to the post of director. The government could have convened a meeting of this committee if it wanted to remove Sinha from his job.

Instead of using this judgement to strengthen its control over the CBI, the government as a part of its declared objective of providing good governance must take steps to make this premier investigating agency a professionally efficient, objective and impartial organisation.  The first step necessary for this purpose is to replace the antiquated and inadequate piece of legislation called the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 that governs it presently with a law that enables it to function without fear or favour, while making it accountable for its performance and conduct.

COLONIAL STRUCTURE, FEUDAL VALUES

 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