.
.
.
The Indian police farce is one of the worst in the world.
Corruption is extremely high, and places in the service are brought through bribes.....thus local mafia groups often buy positions for their goons in the ranks of the IPS, including specific placement.
The British when they conquered ALL of India between 1757--1849....used various levers of power to maintain their hold over the vast country of 300 million in 1872 and 400 million in 1941.........using only 100,000 nationals from the UK, itself.
The first was propaganda directed at themselves and the Indians, in that they had a divine evangelical mission in India to civilize the natives in the service of GOD. This became prominent in the Victorian era in the middle to late 19th century. This belief sill held strong even though the British Empire accounted for the death of 30 million Indians through sheer misrule, and greed of maintaining profit margins for the private entrepreneurs from Bilaat.
The other propaganda weapon was moral superiority---Asians are inherently corrupt amoral people. The corruption is soccer is the work of foreigners not us. Narcotics trade is something done by greasy Deigo's, and niggers..and the City of London is the center of global money laundering in narcotics is simply not true. ....and so on.
Racial superiority, implied and explicit, curiously greater as the end of the empire neared. Unlike the Aryans, Persians, Greeks, Kushans, White Huns, Turko-Afghans ..ALL of whom assimilated into Indian society, the British went the other way, progressively as their rule continued, matured and finally ended.
Then there was the British Indian military: 340,000 in 1857, and 200,000 in 1940. 2,000,000 in 1945.
Then there were the 500 Maharajahs running their fiefdoms, with private armies of 20,000 in some cases, autonomously from the British Raj.(abolished in India in 1948, a year after Independence)
Then there were up to 4000 Zamindar big land owning families who enforced the law, and collected taxes for the British as favoured cronies of the empire.....they too had their private armies of 100--1000 men.(abolished in India in 1948, a year after Independence)
Finally the Imperial Indian Police, along with numerous paramilitary forces. They were not a normal police force, but the police force of an alien occupying power. The Imperial Police Force was corrupt, but also extremely brutal to cower the natives into submission and obedience. The ultimate symbol of which was the lathi..(NOT abolished in India in 1948, a year after Independence)
The Congress needed the COLONIAL police force to maintain law and order IN INDEPENDENT India, and indeed the Congress between 1947---2013 have not been shy using the IPS and its various ANGLICIZED reincarnations to deal with perceived disorder brutally in all parts of India, not unlike the British Raj, whilst being unmoved in undertaking serious reform of the police.
Congress has failed the country in this respect.
India to be a modern country must have a modern police force....this is not astro-physics.
But sadly there are some in the Macauley Brown Sahib set, educated in the Anglicized Missionary schools, and in addition educated in the West, within the elite, who feel to control the masses and put them in their rightful place, what India really requires is a COLONIAL police force that is fundamentally based on a COLONIAL law passed 152 years ago by the British. "Independence" my foot!
What a national JOKE.....AS long as you are not at the receiving end of IPS corruption and brutality.
And so all it remains is for irrelevant state structures, whose jobs is not this surely to prod and cajole the corrupt state structures to reform the IPS.
Whilst the majority of Indians disrespect and suspect them, some resort to violence against them, AND Bollywood rolls out the big Stars to extol them, and celebrate their many virtues......because they have NONE.
The long winded attempts at reform, from WIKIPEDIA:
India's police continue to be governed by an archaic and colonial police law passed in 1861. The Indian Constitution makes policing a state subject and therefore the state governments have the responsibility to provide their communities with a police service. However, after independence, most have adopted the 1861 Act without change, while others have passed laws heavily based on the 1861 Act.
.
Repeated major incidents, (latest of them being 2012 Delhi gang rape case) revealed failure of police to uphold the rule of law.[11][12]
.
The need for reform of police in India has been long recognised. There has been almost 30 years of debate and discussion by government created committees and commissions on the way forward for police reform, but India remains saddled with an outdated and old-fashioned law, while report after report gathers dust on government bookshelves without implementation. Many committees on police reforms have recommended major reforms in the police system coupled with systematic accountability.[13][14]
National Police Commission (1977-81)
.
National Police Commission was the first committee set up by the Indian government to report on policing. The National Police Commission began sitting in 1979, in the context of a post-Emergency India, and produced eight reports, including a Model Police Act, between 1979 and 1981.[15]
.
Ribeiro Committee (1998-99)
.
See also: J. F. Ribeiro
In 1996, two former senior police officers filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court,
asking for the Court to direct governments to implement the
recommendations of the National Police Commission. The Supreme Court
directed the government to set up a committee to review the Commission's
recommendations, and thus the Ribeiro Committee was formed. The
Committee, under the leadership of J. F. Ribeiro, a former chief of police, sat over 1998 and 1999, and produced two reports.[15][16].
Padmanabhaiah Committee (2000)
.
In 2000, the government set up a third committee on police reform, this time under the stewardship of a former union Home Secretary, K. Padmanabhaiah. This Committee released its report in the same year.[15][17].
Soli Sorabjee Committee (2005)
.
See also: Soli Sorabjee
In 2005, the government put together a group to draft a new police Act for India. It was headed by Soli Sorabjee (former Attorney General). The committee submitted a Model Police Act to the union government in late 2006.[15].
Supreme Court intervention (2006)
.
In 1996, Prakash Singh (a former Directors General of Police of the states of Assam and subsequently Uttar Pradesh and finally Director General of the Border Security Force) initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India, asking the court to investigate measures to reform the police forces across India to ensure the proper rule of law and improve security across India. The Supreme Court studied various reports on police reforms. Finally, in 2006, a bench of Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan[18] ordered the state governments to implement several reforms in police force.[19].
Several measures were identified as necessary to professionalise the police in India:
- A mid or high ranking police officer must not be transferred more frequently than every two years.
- The state government cannot ask the police force to hire someone, nor can they choose the Chief Commissioner.
- There must be separate departments and staff for investigation and patrolling.
- A State Security Commission, for policies and direction
- A Police Establishment Board, which will decide the selection, promotions and transfers of police officers and other staff
- A Police Complaints Authority, to inquire into allegations of police misconduct.
Follow-up from Supreme Court
In 2006, due to a lack of action by all the state governments,[21] the Supreme Court ordered the state governments to report to it why the reform measures outlined were not implemented.[22] After being questioned in front of the judges of the Supreme Court, the state governments are finally starting to reform the police forces and give them the operational independence they need for fearless and proper law enforcement.Tamil Nadu Police has been in the forefront of application of the new referendum.[23].
Again, in October 2012, a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices SS Nijjar and Jasti Chelameswar asked all state governments and Union territories to inform about compliance of its September 2006 judgement. The order was passed when Prakash Singh through his lawyer Prashant Bhushan said that many of the reforms (ordered by the Supreme Court) have yet to been implemented by several governments.[24]
_______________________________________________
SC summons four chief secretaries on police reforms
By Times of India.
.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to summon chief secretaries
of states to seek personal explanation of the steps taken by
governments in implementing the court's seven-year-old judgment on
police reforms, which included separation of law and order duties from investigation work.
A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and V Gopala Gowda ordered the top
bureaucrats of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh
to be present in court on July 31 to assist the counsel in "furnishing
detailed information on implementation" of police reforms as ordered in
the 2006 judgment in the Prakash Singh case.
Lack of
cooperation from states in furnishing details of implementation of
police reforms and non-filing of affidavits in time irked the bench,
which said because of the insensitivity of the states, the case had to
be adjourned several times.
"Lack of sensitivity on part of the
states cannot be condoned under any circumstances," the bench said
before deciding to summon the chief secretaries in batches to make a fresh attempt to free the police force from the stranglehold of political bosses and ensure people-friendly policing.
Repeated disobedience of court's directive saw the bench saying that
"water has flown over the bridge of their patience". The judges said,
"Our frustration is over the manner in which states and their counsel
are behaving. Unless some officers are convicted under the Contempt of
Court Act, things are not going to improve. Let the chief secretaries of
the states appear in person and explain their position about
implementation of judgment in Prakash Singh."
It summoned the
chief secretaries of the four states in the first lot after advocate
Prashant Bhushan accused these states as most non-compliant. Attorney
general G E Vahanvati, who is assisting the bench in the matter, agreed
with the procedure adopted by the court. 
___________________________________________
Colonial hangover
.
By Sandeep Joshi of The Hindu.
.
The Sunday Story India's police forces are generally hostile and corrupt. They are also often brutal, as the recent beating of unarmed people in Tarn Tarn and Patna demonstrated. The Indian Police Act of 1861, a colonial relic, needs to be replaced with a law that befits a free country.
.
The former Border Security Force (BSF) Director-General, Prakash Singh,
refers to his favourite game of ping pong whenever he has to explain the
failure of the Indian political establishment to carry out much-needed
reforms to establish a professional police force.
.
“The Union and State governments have been making clever attempts to legitimise the status quo
by just passing the buck when it comes to implementing the landmark
Supreme Court judgment of 2006 on police reforms,” says Mr. Singh, who
has also served as police chief of Uttar Pradesh and Assam.
.
It was his decade-long battle, along with the efforts of some civil
society groups, that led to the Supreme Court ordering a complete
overhaul of the policing system. And since then, he has been campaigning
hard to ensure that the court’s directions are implemented in “ letter
and spirit.”
Behind the rot is the Police Act of 1861 legislated by the British after
the Indian Mutiny of 1857 to impose a police force upon their subjects,
which could be used solely to consolidate and perpetuate their rule,
says Mr. Singh.
.
It has been over a century since the need for reforms was initially
felt. The first Indian Police Commission of 1902-03 found that “the
police force throughout the country is in a most unsatisfactory
condition; that abuses are common everywhere; that this involves great
injury to the people and discredit to the government; and that radical
reforms are urgently necessary.”
“Several commissions and committees have strongly recommended major
changes… but the political executive continues to retain its
stranglehold on the police. Every successive government finds it
convenient to use, misuse and abuse the police for its partisan
political ends,” Mr. Singh says.
.
Significantly, three of the seven key Supreme Court directions in the
case were — the States were to establish ‘State Security Commission’ (to
insulate the police from political pressure), ‘Police Establishment
Board’ (to give autonomy in personnel matters), and ‘Police Complaints
Authority’ (to look into complaints of police misconduct).
.
Dismal scenario
.
A compliance report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
paints a dismal picture. It says that though most States have set up the
‘State Security Commission,’ they do not reflect the court’s criteria
with regard to composition, function and powers. Andhra Pradesh, Jammu
and Kashmir, Orissa and Tamil Nadu have not complied with this
directive.
.
Only Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, and Meghalaya are in full compliance with
all the criteria laid down by the court for ‘Police Establishment
Board,’ while Bihar has been non-compliant.
.
Ironically, no State government has established ‘Police Complaints
Authorities’ at district and State levels that fully comply with the
court orders. A significant minority — Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
Mizoram, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh — have
completely ignored the directive.
.
Another peculiar case is that of the Model Police Bill, prepared in 2006
by the Police Act Drafting Committee (PADC) of the Union Home Ministry,
which complements the court’s judgment. The Ministry, which controls
the Delhi Police, was to enact the “Model Act” in the National Capital
so that it could be implemented by other States (as law and order in a
state subject), but the file has been shuttling between North Block and
the Delhi government.
.
Noting that so far only 12 States have enacted their own versions of the
new Police Act, CHRI’s Coordinator (Police Reforms Programme) Navaz
Kotwal observes: “A cursory look at the recent laws shows that most of
these new pieces of legislation are as regressive as — if not more than —
the archaic laws that they replaced. New laws are being drafted in
complete secrecy by a small lobby of police officers and bureaucrats
without involving the public. They give statutory sanction to all the
bad practices that existed. Worryingly, these Acts tend to reduce or
dilute accountability.
.
“The whole system — from recruitment to training, to performance and
promotions, to transfers, appointments accountability — has got so
eroded and rotten that a complete makeover is needed,” she says.
.
The former Union Home Secretary, G.K. Pillai, says: “Today, less than 30
per cent of those recruited in police have got in through merit. It
affects the functioning of the system and is the first source of
corruption. The first and foremost is to ensure that those who are
recruited come by a transparent merit-based system to ensure that they
are not beholden to influence peddlers and have not bribed to get in.”
.
He further says politicians and political parties feel that the police
are an instrument in their hands to further their interests. “The
objectives have to change — from being a force responsive to the powers
that be to the upholder of the law and human rights; and the feeling
that the police are there for the average citizen.”
.
But Mr. Singh, who now has a website (www.peoplepolicemovement.com)
dedicated to creating awareness of police reforms, has some straight
questions. “Why can’t the police give a patient hearing to people? Why
can’t they register cases?”
“People don’t trust the police as they are rude, badly behaved, corrupt
and tend to abuse their power. They need to make conscious efforts to
bridge the gap with the public,” reasons Ms. Kotwal.
___________________
___________________
