It was not at all surprising to see Ajit Pawar, Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, haranguing Anjana Krishna, a young IPS officer posted as sub-divisional officer in the Karmala taluka of Solapur. Such incidents have become common across the country. However, what was like a breath of fresh air was Krishna’s response.
The police officer was apparently taking action against illegal sand mining in her jurisdiction on August 31 when the criminals allegedly managed to reach out to the Deputy CM. In the video that was circulated widely across social media, Pawar was heard saying: “I am the Deputy Chief Minister, I am ordering you to stop all this and leave. I will take action against you.” Krishna’s polite response was: “There was a complaint of illegal mining, and it was my duty to act on that. And, sir, how do I know who you are?” Naturally, she wanted to make sure that it was not a hoax call. This infuriated Pawar, and he yelled, “How dare you?” Krishna was not cowed down and insisted that the Deputy CM directly call her on her telephone number.
Later, Pawar issued a clarification saying that he had the highest respect for the police force. He valued the rule of law, and he was only trying to ensure that “every illegal activity, including sand mining, is dealt with strictly as per the law”. Hypocrisy, they say, is the homage which vice pays to virtue.
The National Police Commission, in its 1979 report, said that “interference with the police system by extraneous sources, especially the politicians, encourages the police personnel to believe that their career advancement does not at all depend on the merits of their professional performance, but can be secured by currying favour with politicians who count” and this “sets the system on the downward slope to decay and total ineffectiveness”. The Commission further noted that “the phenomenon of political interference has grown to enormous proportions, assiduously fed by vested interests among the police as well as the politicians”.
Several state Police Commissions had also earlier recorded similar observations. The Kerala Police Reorganisation Committee (1959) observed that “the greatest obstacle to efficient police administration flows from the domination of party politics under the state administration”. The Punjab Police Commission (1961-62) found that “members of political parties, particularly of the ruling party … interfere considerably in the working of the police for unlawful ends.” The Delhi Police Commission (1968) recorded that “political interference is another rich source of corruption”. The Tamil Nadu Police Commission (1971) noted that the problem of political interference had grown over the years.
What happened during the Emergency (1975) and the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 were the worst examples of executive dominance over and interference in the day-to-day working of the police. All kinds of excesses were committed during the Emergency, while in the 1984 riots, the police generally remained a mute spectator to carnage by the hooligans belonging to or supported by the ruling party.
The Shah Commission, which inquired into the excesses committed during the Emergency said that “if a recurrence of this type of subversion is to be prevented the system must be overhauled with a view to strengthen it in a manner that the functionaries working the system do so in an atmosphere free from fear of the consequences of their lawful actions and in a spirit calculated to promote the integrity and welfare the nation and the rule of law”. Tragically, the suggested overhaul was never undertaken.
The Supreme Court of India issued a slew of directions in 2006 to restructure the police. Three institutions were proposed to be set up: State Security Commission to insulate the police from extraneous influences; the police establishment board to give departmental police officers a certain degree of autonomy in matters of postings and transfers; and complaints authorities at the state and district levels to inquire into allegations of serious misconduct against police personnel. The Court also prescribed a procedure for the selection of director general of police of the state, gave fixed tenure of two years to all officers at the operational level in the field, and directed that the investigative work be separated from law-and-order functions in the metropolitan towns.
There were great expectations of complete transformation in the working of the police. It was hoped that the police would become sensitive and accountable and would enforce the rule of law. However, that was not to be. The political class was determined to retain its stranglehold over the police. The bureaucracy was not prepared to give up its authority over the police department. And so, while there was some compliance on paper, the ghost of 1861, when the Police Act was promulgated, continues to haunt us.
The Prime Minister talked of having SMART police in the country — a police force which would be sensitive, mobile, accountable, responsive and techno-savvy. The transformation, however, couldn’t see the light of day as the states had different ideas and the Centre continued insisting on the fact that police is a state subject. Notably, the Centre was also not sincere because had it been keen on reforms, they would have been implemented in the states where the same party ruled.
India is presently a four trillion-dollar economy, and it is expected to become, by 2047, a thirty trillion-dollar economy, or the third largest economy. This economic superstructure needs to have a rock-solid foundation of stable law and order, and that will only be possible if we restructure, reorganise, reform and rejuvenate our police. Only a progressive, modern police enforcing the rule of law under all circumstances, irrespective of the party in power, will help us realise the dream of a Viksit Bharat.
The writer, Patron of the Indian Police Foundation, has been campaigning for police reforms
