Where their loyalties lie...
THE primary duty of the police is to maintain order which would
include enforcing the law and the prevention and detection of
crime. The police ought to be concerned about the interests of
the general public, the standard of the law, the administration
of justice and the security parameters that ensure it. Loyalty is
the foundation on which the police organisation is built up.
Loyalty, would mean steadfast adherence to what is legal and the
law as the word `loyalty' originates from the Latin lex and
legalis.Policing, as a profession in a democracy, denotes
fidelity to the sovereignty of the people and necessitates
upholding the law of the country, keeping up the orderly life of
the common man and safeguarding peace and security.
This is where the police differ from private armies. Disaster
strikes when the police function as the private armies of the
ruling political party or any influential member of society. The
police in India have fallen into this quagmire, its vitality and
profesionalism pushed to the background.
Loyalty is of two kinds. One is pure and simple fidelity to the
master. The other owes its allegiance to certain ideals and
principles. This implies allegiance to one's duties,
responsibilities, objectives, profession and the chosen path of
life. This commitment raises their loyalty to the status of a
mission. The loyalty needed in a profession like that of the
police is of elevated nature and it bestows the qualities of
nobility and dignity on the organisation. It lifts the police
above factional interests and gives them a cosmopolitan vitality.
The strength and the trust born out of this superior form of
loyalty stand the police force in good stead in its hour of risk
and crisis.
It is tragic that the Indian police prefer to trade this
characteristic for trivial and ephemeral benefits. The trend has
spread like wildfire to ravage the institution. The genesis lies
in the promotion of career prospects and other perks dumb loyalty
brings to individuals. Personal loyalty to political masters
takes some people to the top, tempting others to follow suit.
The models created a pattern and the pattern became a part of the
system in a setup where individuality and orginality are not
sacred. The real threat lies in the possibility of this tendency
coming to be accepted as the true character of the police. This
may not take long to happen if the present goings on are any
indication.
The malady is not limited to a particular state or unit. There
can be hope of remedy if there is at least one example of the
right model. But none seems to be available. Isolated attempts to
tread the right path are seen as deviations from the mainstream.
This is the beginning of the atrophy of the Indian police. How
far the degeneration has spread is evident from the way some
important criminal cases of political significance have been 0};3
handled. A criminal case warrants professional loyalty in its
investigation to bring the culprits to book. The political status
of the accused and the fall-out are irrelevant to the process of
investigation.
The misconceptions about loyalty with a slant in favour of the
political masters and other powerful influence-pedlars have
clouded this vital aspect of policing. With the result, the rule
of law has suffered and the administration of justice is
crippled. The damage already done to the country's public life
cannot be repaired until the police are brought back on the rails
of loyalty to their profession.
The police, whether it is the Special Protection Group, the
Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing or the
Central Bureau of Investigation, survive the transient political
masters and their political groups in power. Their relevance to
the country is more abiding than that of the politicians in
power. In the circumstances, the police ought not to be
subservient to the political masters whose future is
unpredictable. The police going loyal to transient political
interests certainly will damage and debase the system itself.
It is a common practice in some States to change key officers
when a new dispensation takes over the rule. A recent example is
from Tamil Nadu. And this is not an isolated case. It reflects
the attitude of the political leadership towards the professional
loyalties of the police. Public opinion about the professional
loyalty of the police is rather low.
Politicians believe that all those in the police are commodities
that can be bought and ``loyal'' policemen to make a substantial
difference to their political fortunes. Hence the mad rush to
place favourite police officers in key positions. Thus
politicians exploit the weakness of the organisation. The culprit
here is the perverted loyalties of the police. What is termed as
political interference is patently the making of the police by
their personal loyalties.
The intelligence unit is the most abused section and its chief is
the most willing tool. Intelligence officers have a
responsibility to their organisational objectives and they ought
to work towards meeting their objectives. But misplaced loyalties
restrict the scope of the intelligence units which are seen as
the lackeys of the ruling parties and their leaders. The
usefulness of the intelligence units as political tools is so
pronounced in India that they are brought under the direct
control of the Chief Executive of the Government from the
traditional Home Department and the chiefs are the main advisers
of the Chief Executive, head and shoulders above even the Chief
Secretaries in States and the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre.
This importance is a reward for the lengths to which these
officers would go risking their personal and career safety and
indulge in illegal acts to oblige the political masters. p73
Telephone tapping and shadowing political rivals of the ruling
party leaders are only minor prevarications these loyal police
officers indulge in to keep themselves in the good books of their
political masters.
Assessing the political trends and suitability of candidates in
different constituencies during elections and reporting the
activities of politicians within and outside the ruling party are
now wrongly seen as legitimate functions of the intelligence
units.
Mr. Chandra Sekhar, former Prime Minister, in response to a
question on the Jain hawala case during the 11th Lok Sabha
election campaign, said the investigation of corruption cases was
the job of a Police Inspector and not that of a Minister. That
answer would be right in an ideal situation where the police
function professionally, with their loyalty fixed to their
duties. It has no relevance in a situation where policemen are
loyal to individuals or groups in power. The police being the
executive edge of the administration, their loyalties make all
the difference to the quality of administration.
Factional loyalties have the singular potentiallity of eroding
fairness and impartiality. They make professional loyalty seem
meaningless. A mature and sober political leadership can set
right the fractured loyalties of the police organisation. In this
context, judicial activism, in a periodical review of the
progress of investigation of some cases of national importance,
is a welcome step although in normal circumstances such a
judicial review would have amounted to interference in the
independent functioning of the investigating authority.
The duty of providing the right guidance and direction to the
police lies with the political leadership. Ironically, the police
force has become an object of ridicule by being asked to
investigate certain affairs of the politicians with whom its
absolute loyalty lies and who twist policemen around their little
fingers.
