02-12-2007, 03:06 AM
<b>The riot of politics</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Joginder Singh
The communal problem in India has existed for long. Recent instances of violence in Gorakhpur, Mangalore, Bangalore and Indore bring back the country's attention on this festering problem. The ongoing unrest in Gorakhpur is neither the first nor the last of its kind. Such occurrences at some places have not only been prolonged, but have also resulted in loss of many innocent lives.
The police is often blamed for not handling the situation well. The National Police Commission (1977-81) in its report on communal riots observed: <b>"In many cases of troubled cities, the police and the magistracy just withdrew when anti-social groups indulged in violent crimes. The deployment of Magistrates on such occasions appears to have reduced to almost a farce... There is a tendency amongst the officers to avoid taking responsibility in dealing with the situation. They either avoid going to the trouble spot, or when they happen to be present there, they try not to order, the use of force, when the situation so demands, or better still, slip away from the scene leaving the force leaderless." </b>
The report further added, "We have reasons to believe that this reaction of the officers was more a calculated decision on their part rather than a reflex action out of cowardice. They consider it prudent, to avoid getting involved in ordering the use of force. It is unfortunate, that after such riots, it is only those officers who had taken some action in dealing with the situation, who are accused of all sorts of misdoings and they have to face harassment and humiliation in the inquiries that follow... To deal with the situations as they arise, it is essential that officers act on their own in their best judgement, and not seek instructions from higher quarters where none are necessary."
State Governments are generally seen tackling communal riots in an ad hoc manner. Regrettably, as every vote counts in a democracy, all political parties look for such incidents to bolster their electoral prospects.
A number of commissions have analysed the genesis of communal violence and stressed the need for controlling rumours effectively, which aggravate the situation. During a riot, the least that any Government can do is institute thorough investigation and follow it up with successful prosecution. This prevents further crimes and discourages potential mischief-makers. Stringent punishment awarded to a rioter acts as a deterrent and makes the criminal-minded realise that "crime does not pay". The problem of riots cannot be isolated from general law enforcement in any State. Strict and impartial law enforcement on a day-to-day basis is the only way to control communal violence.
There is no straightjacketed solution to fit all situations in dealing with communal riots. The National Integration Council suggested that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police be made responsible for communal disturbances.
While dealing with communal violence, the police can at best undertake fire-fighting operations, as long-term measures are vested in the political leadership. The police, however, should ensure that all laws are enforced without prejudice.
The following are the causes for failures in controlling communal riots. Often the administration fails in intelligence gathering and forging communication links in time, as well as in making a correct appraisal and evaluation on intelligence reports. Even when intelligence of likely trouble is available, there is reluctance to make preventive arrests of anti-social elements, thanks to political interference.
These days with the means of faster communication available, the police cannot take any step without the knowledge of some local politician. Politicians also try to pose as friends of victims and never forget to visit the riot-hit areas with an eye on votes. A Union Minister was recently denied entry into Gorakhpur because it was felt that his visit could affect the ruling party's minority vote-bank.
<b>The police department has been politicised to such an extent that the hierarchical control and command of the department has almost been done away with. State politicians in power communicate directly with the officers in charge of police stations to give directions as to what and how any action should be taken and who should be arrested and who should not be touched. It is for this reason that the State Governments do not want to let go their control over the police by fixing tenures of officers, despite the orders of the Supreme Court to that effect.</b>
<b>Interference with the police system by extraneous elements, especially politicians, encourages the law-enforcers to believe that their respective careers do not depend on their performance, but by currying favour with politicians. No wonder decisions taken at powerful political headquarters are implemented without question at the operational level. The frequent bypassing of the normal chain of commands results in the atrophy of the supervisory structure. It, therefore, fails to operate effectively even in matters that do not attract extraneous interference</b>.
The role of police during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots came under severe criticism from several quarters, especially the Srikrishna Commission, which implicated 32 officers for anti-minority bias. The same feelings were expressed by the People's Union of Civil Liberties about the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
Though the problem of communalism can only be solved through political sagacity, a lot can be done by police officials at the ground level by taking adequate preventive measures. In communally sensitive areas, peace committees should be organised before, during and after the riots. In riot-prone places, action should be taken to direct persons in possession of firearms to surrender them as a precautionary measure.
Nothing is impossible; there are ways to handle every problem. What is required is political will to deal with even the worst of situations. Bertrand Russell once observed: "We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side-by-side, one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The communal problem in India has existed for long. Recent instances of violence in Gorakhpur, Mangalore, Bangalore and Indore bring back the country's attention on this festering problem. The ongoing unrest in Gorakhpur is neither the first nor the last of its kind. Such occurrences at some places have not only been prolonged, but have also resulted in loss of many innocent lives.
The police is often blamed for not handling the situation well. The National Police Commission (1977-81) in its report on communal riots observed: <b>"In many cases of troubled cities, the police and the magistracy just withdrew when anti-social groups indulged in violent crimes. The deployment of Magistrates on such occasions appears to have reduced to almost a farce... There is a tendency amongst the officers to avoid taking responsibility in dealing with the situation. They either avoid going to the trouble spot, or when they happen to be present there, they try not to order, the use of force, when the situation so demands, or better still, slip away from the scene leaving the force leaderless." </b>
The report further added, "We have reasons to believe that this reaction of the officers was more a calculated decision on their part rather than a reflex action out of cowardice. They consider it prudent, to avoid getting involved in ordering the use of force. It is unfortunate, that after such riots, it is only those officers who had taken some action in dealing with the situation, who are accused of all sorts of misdoings and they have to face harassment and humiliation in the inquiries that follow... To deal with the situations as they arise, it is essential that officers act on their own in their best judgement, and not seek instructions from higher quarters where none are necessary."
State Governments are generally seen tackling communal riots in an ad hoc manner. Regrettably, as every vote counts in a democracy, all political parties look for such incidents to bolster their electoral prospects.
A number of commissions have analysed the genesis of communal violence and stressed the need for controlling rumours effectively, which aggravate the situation. During a riot, the least that any Government can do is institute thorough investigation and follow it up with successful prosecution. This prevents further crimes and discourages potential mischief-makers. Stringent punishment awarded to a rioter acts as a deterrent and makes the criminal-minded realise that "crime does not pay". The problem of riots cannot be isolated from general law enforcement in any State. Strict and impartial law enforcement on a day-to-day basis is the only way to control communal violence.
There is no straightjacketed solution to fit all situations in dealing with communal riots. The National Integration Council suggested that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police be made responsible for communal disturbances.
While dealing with communal violence, the police can at best undertake fire-fighting operations, as long-term measures are vested in the political leadership. The police, however, should ensure that all laws are enforced without prejudice.
The following are the causes for failures in controlling communal riots. Often the administration fails in intelligence gathering and forging communication links in time, as well as in making a correct appraisal and evaluation on intelligence reports. Even when intelligence of likely trouble is available, there is reluctance to make preventive arrests of anti-social elements, thanks to political interference.
These days with the means of faster communication available, the police cannot take any step without the knowledge of some local politician. Politicians also try to pose as friends of victims and never forget to visit the riot-hit areas with an eye on votes. A Union Minister was recently denied entry into Gorakhpur because it was felt that his visit could affect the ruling party's minority vote-bank.
<b>The police department has been politicised to such an extent that the hierarchical control and command of the department has almost been done away with. State politicians in power communicate directly with the officers in charge of police stations to give directions as to what and how any action should be taken and who should be arrested and who should not be touched. It is for this reason that the State Governments do not want to let go their control over the police by fixing tenures of officers, despite the orders of the Supreme Court to that effect.</b>
<b>Interference with the police system by extraneous elements, especially politicians, encourages the law-enforcers to believe that their respective careers do not depend on their performance, but by currying favour with politicians. No wonder decisions taken at powerful political headquarters are implemented without question at the operational level. The frequent bypassing of the normal chain of commands results in the atrophy of the supervisory structure. It, therefore, fails to operate effectively even in matters that do not attract extraneous interference</b>.
The role of police during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots came under severe criticism from several quarters, especially the Srikrishna Commission, which implicated 32 officers for anti-minority bias. The same feelings were expressed by the People's Union of Civil Liberties about the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
Though the problem of communalism can only be solved through political sagacity, a lot can be done by police officials at the ground level by taking adequate preventive measures. In communally sensitive areas, peace committees should be organised before, during and after the riots. In riot-prone places, action should be taken to direct persons in possession of firearms to surrender them as a precautionary measure.
Nothing is impossible; there are ways to handle every problem. What is required is political will to deal with even the worst of situations. Bertrand Russell once observed: "We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side-by-side, one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->