Reform or perish

 Against the backdrop of recent violence over CAA, incidents at JMI , the JNU and protests in other states and most recent the Delhi riots which dominated national news; the issue of alleged police biasness, complicity and brutality has resurfaced. The performance of Delhi Police during recent violence continues to reverberate in Parliament where seven MPs of the Congress were suspended. As the enforcer of law in the national capital, Delhi Police enjoys a special privilege since it is under the administrative control of the central government under the union home ministry. The recent riots were the latest in a series of the police failures to uphold the law during the demonstrations against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, or the CAA. These failures do not come as a surprise. They are the inevitable consequences of something which were often mentioned in the past notably by former police chiefs. The relentless attack of politicians on the autonomy of institutions, and the failure of police officers or civil servants to resist the attack has reduced a proud police force to act like a puppet of the ruling party at the centre. According to observers it was not actually lack of leadership that led to the often confused mishandling of situation by the Delhi Police. One of the main problems is that Delhi Police continues to hobble under political interference and the police chain of command does not really function because the subordinate police officers cultivate MPs and Ministers to intervene on their behalf particularly their postings. A police chief is in practise, not necessarily the most capable. What tilts the balance is political favour that works under an arrangement of symbiotic relationship. In Delhi the former police chief became incapacitated because he had to walk a tightrope between politics and professionalism. This was a tall order and in the end, that pleased no one when things went from bad to worse. One of the most important yet wilfully neglected issue is for a police force to have a separate and independent intelligence wing and an independent investigation wing without political interference to have the most capable and efficient men to man them. This is a core recommendation for Police Reforms which came after the Janata Party government in 1977 established the National Police commission. Police reforms include fixed tenures for Director Generals of Police (DGPs) and Superintendents of Police. Also, the DGPs should have a minimum residual service to ensure continuity and stability and avoid frequent leadership changes. However, 23 States have ignored guidelines on appointment of DGPs. As of today, 12 States have not implemented the separation of investigation and law and order wings. The intelligence agencies continue to be hemmed and staffed predominantly by police personnel and others on deputation from various government services. The Supreme Court directed the States to review the progress on police reforms in 2006 and cracked the whip on States which were reluctant to initiate reforms. There was some movement towards police reforms but thereafter everything was put on the back burner. In July 2018 the Supreme Court once again reviewed the progress of States and UTs on this front. When things go wrong, politicians cannot blame police because the message is: ‘reform or perish’.