`Politicians don’t want to reform the police, they need the cops under them’

What is the status of the NPC’s recommendations?
Prakash Singh, a retired DGP, had petitioned the court on this issue two years back. The matter is pending with the Supreme Court.

What about a body to oversee the police?
There should be a states security commission, whose members should include dignitaries like the chief minister to review the work of the police, point out flaws and see that the police don’t become the ruling party’s agent. It should work like a watchdog. But political parties are not interested in such measures as they need the police under them.

What about the Communist Party of India (Marxist) idea of `people’s police’ introduced in Kerala?
Well, that won’t work. A people’s police in effect will be the ruling party’s police. A government organising people for the police will only end up neutralising it. What will help are genuine citizens’ groups.

Of late, there have been experiments to improve the force. For example, Kiran Bedi’s meditation programmes…
These are cosmetic, but useful changes. A policeman’s job is extremely stressful and meditation can help to the extent that it relieves stress. It has nothing to do with improving the police force.

Should the NHRC be given more autonomy? Will that help?
The NHRC is a government commission which has relatively less interference in its functioning. Within the Act itself, there is scope for greater autonomy. The Commission has asked for certain amendments. Most of the NHRC’s recommendations are normally accepted.

Isn’t the NHRC too centralised in its location and functioning? People in remote areas find it difficult to approach the commission.
The idea of a human rights commission for each state is under consideration. Commissions in Assam and J&K already exist. Whether people have faith in the commission or whether they are active or not is another issue. Since the NHRC cannot oversee human rights violations all over the country, we should press for the constitution of state human rights commissions.

Shouldn’t we also start looking at victimology? The topic is very much under debate in the west, but it’s totally neglected in developing countries.
Yes, it is time to understand the trauma of victims. The victim should be given compensation for the trauma suffered as well as have a say in the criminal justice proceedings. There are cases where the victims don’t want compensation, they just want to be heard. The victim impact statement is an important aspect. Western countries now take into account questions like the impact of a crime on a victim’s family and the effect on their lives before reaching a decision. In our criminal justice system, the victims’ trauma and other aspects are not properly understood.

Why can’t the NHRC take this up?
Apart from taking up criminal cases, the NHRC gives compensation to victims. What we need is an Act that will make it mandatory for victims to claim compensation.

What can be done about rehabilitation centres and victim counselling?
If you rely on the state, not much. They can just set up counselling boards. The conditions are terrible in the protective home in Agra, for instance. Like in the west, we should get NGOs and private organisations to run victims’ assistance forums. For example, they can run counseling centres. At this juncture, two things are called for: We should have regular victimisation surveys, as well as compensation for victims of serious crimes. At present, there are no provisions for this. We are even party to the convention of International Civil and Political Rights. Under that, a victim of crime has the enforceable right to compensation. Because, a crime takes place when the state fails to give protection to its citizens.