Police require the trust of society
Two important items in the HT of April 21, when put together, lead us to interesting observations. The first one was the article by Ashok Kapur, a retired IAS officer, who argued that the police need to be policed by a higher body and the civilian magistrates were best suited for the job. The second one was about the jailing of a senior IAS officer convicted in a case of corruption.
The first conclusion that we can draw is that it is not the police alone that needs policing. Anyone who violates the law of the land needs to be policed and made answerable. This can only be achieved by a self-balancing system of checks which does not spare anyone, howsoever high he may be.
This also means no institution is higher to another, but at the same time each has its role defined and is accountable for delivery of its mandate.
Designating a body or department higher to another perennially is a sure recipe for elitism and inefficiency. In the modern world, the success of an administration is derived from the creative tension and cooperation it can create among its constituents to enhance delivery.
One institution lording over another can only bring in class consciousness and attendant ills that we are already witnessing.
Kapur praises Lord Macaulay for enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1860 for the pride of place it gives to the magistracy. He equates it with the birth of democracy. However, one has to realise that the magistrates were usually British and the Code was designed to ensure their supremacy.
The police were mostly locals and could not be trusted and hence made subservient to the magistrates.
The British mistrusted the Indians so much that statement before a police officer was made inadmissible in the Indian Evidence Act, a cross that Indian policing still bears. This lack of trust in the police has spawned various malpractices that are considered expedient to ensure that cases are not thrown out by courts!
Police reforms, if they are to be successful, have to be backed by a trust in the police, especially when we already have so
DESIGNATING A BODY OR DEPARTMENT HIGHER TO ANOTHER PERENNIALLY IS A SURE RECIPE FOR ELITISM AND INEFFICIENCY. IN THE MODERN WORLD, THE SUCCESS OF AN ADMINISTRATION IS DERIVED FROM THE CREATIVE TENSION AND CO-OPERATION IT CAN CREATE AMONG ITS CONSTITUENTS TO ENHANCE DELIVERY.
many oversight mechanisms in place in the form of an active judiciary, various commissions and an unsparing media.
Kapur goes on to question the wisdom of Government of India for swallowing a ‘false affidavit…… examined in the home ministry with its eyes wide shut’ and even questions the Honourable Supreme Court for its pathbreaking judgement on police reforms, which lies unimplemented largely.
In the 21st century when domain expertise and specialised skills are the name of the game, a generalist and supremacist magistracy lording over the administration is an idea which is not only regressive but potentially catastrophic for a nation that desires to match China in scale, Japan in quality and America in innovation.
The 21st century is an age of plurality, an age of experimentation. It is an age of breaking barriers, of multi- functional teams, of multi-tasking capabilities without compromising on the outcomes.
It is an age of flat, fluid and adaptive organisations that are nimble and surefooted, clear in their mandate.
Hold them accountable by all means, improve them wherever needed, experiment with their structure, systems and strategies, but measure them solely by their outcomes; not on the basis of some conservative/ regressive and archaic ideas which have outlived their utility.