|
Quo
Vadis
Whither are you Going
For
this new series of columns, I have symbolically chosen the title from
the call of the Roman guards when they addressed passers by: Quo Vadis,
where are you going? In the previous series, 'Inside view' I took
a retrospective approach, dilating upon many areas that affect our
lives by dint of institutional management of the country. While responding
positively many readers complained that I was finding faults but not
proffering solutions.
In
this series, I am taking a prospective view of things where we can
look at the paths ahead and the choices available. There is no certainty
in determining destiny but it certainly helps knowing a little about
the paths ahead.
Iqbal
Mustafa.
February 2004
|
The rise of random crime is adopting alarming proportions virtually
all over the country. I am not talking of terrorist activities, organised
criminal cartels or politically driven violence; I am talking of the
eerie sense of personal insecurity that bites into daily existence
of people in rural and urban areas. I don't know of anyone who hasn't
a gory tail of a robbery or car snatching to tell from within their
close social circles. One of our ex-finance ministers was deprived
of his new car at gun point in broad daylight from the most prestigious
residential areas of Lahore a couple of months ago. I know of at least
ten other such incidences within the past year. The busy traffic junction
of Kalima Chowk in Lahore is a popular place for car snatching and
many cars are stolen from defence, the ultimate sanctum of officialdom.
Mobile phone snatching is as common as minor traffic violations.
Dynamics of crime are a very complex issue with a multitude of social,
economic and political vectors. Keeping aside all the indirect influences
that effect crime rate in a given society at a given time, police
is a limb of the government that deals with crime directly and its
efficiency in crime deterrence, investigation and prosecution has
a significant bearing on how safe do people feel in their daily lives.
This is not to say that a highly efficient police force would guarantee
a crime free society or conversely, that every crime free society
has a strong police force. Like in other matters of governance, governments
have an obligation to create and maintain an effective crime deterrence
system, of which the police is a front line agency.
The cognizance of weaknesses in police efficiency has motivated reforms
in this area. The Police Order 2002 is an attempt at improving governance
of police. Does it have the teeth to deliver a substantial improvement?
Time will tell but apparently it fails to address fundamental issues.
We inherited our judicial system and the police structure from the
British colonial rule - Police Act 1861. In its present form it suffers
from three defects. First, the process of Law enforcement follows
the sequence of information, apprehension, investigation, trial and
punishment. The first three steps are in the jurisdiction of the police
whereas the latter two steps are conducted by the courts of law. Police
functions are thus interminably fused with the judiciary. The seamless
integration of the police with the judiciary was one of major achievements
of the British rule, which has been lost. After independence the complex
systems of law enforcement came in to our own hands. The laws and
the institutions were left in tact but the ideologically homogeneous
pool of the ruling British elite left suddenly, leaving behind a vacuum
of a cognizant and consistent administrative philosophy.
The inheritors of the system were well-trained functionaries, adept
at following the letter of the law but devoid of the advanced enlightenment
required for legislative adjustments that are a part of the evolutionary
process of every institution. At the apex of the power pyramid, contentious
factions began to scuffle for control and at the upper tiers of bureaucratic
control; the functionaries were left bereft of a coherent sense of
social objectives. They were soon to form their little chiefdoms,
as complete ends in themselves for the provision of employment (and
the benefits that accrued there from) to their kith and kin. Departments
wrapped themselves in to airtight capsules, which were all kept in
one basket next to the ultimate seat of power. The collaborative interdependence
of different limbs of the government ceased to exist and the rulers
began to use departments with the joy of a child playing with marbles.
Second, the fatal dissonance in the process of criminal law does not
end at the functional dichotomy between the police and the courts.
Within the police service cadre a marked distinction exists between
the higher officials and the lower functionaries. This distinction,
which was inherited from the colonial rule where there were White
man posts and Brown man posts should have naturally disappeared after
independence, but the class conscious, rigid mindset of the ruling
elites preserved it zealously. In terms of social background, education
and service grades the upper and the lower officials of the police
department are like chalk and cheese. They do not speak the same language
or understand law on the same wavelength. This heterogeneous mix of
personnel types is not conducive to producing an efficient police
force. It can deliver law and order through a show of naked force
on the streets something which is only a short term emergency measure
but it can not apprehend criminals, investigate professionally and
deliver factual evidence to the courts of law.
Third, the police has three primary functions. 1) Maintaining law
and order. 2) Crime prevention and detection. 3) Protocol duties for
the protection of VIP's. All three functions are specialised field
of work requiring different logistics and personnel skills. Our police
is a general purpose force deputed with all three functions without
specialised equipment or training for either. For this organisational
deficiency, it is ill prepared to conduct any of the functions assigned
to it efficiently.
The Police Order 2002, apart from the resistance of the Provinces
to implement it, does not address these fundamental weaknesses. Along
with platitudes about police conduct and behaviour there is administrative
restructuring of authority and procedures but the redundant elements
of CrPC statutes of 1898 are left unaltered. The division of the Force
into no less than 18 departments is more for administrative convenience
rather than developing core competencies in the three areas mentioned
above.
As crime waves keep ravishing social fabric, the old question of whether
police is perceived as a friend or a foe will linger on in the minds
of the people even after the Police Order 2002 is fully implemented
in its essence.
Iqbal Mustafa
email: mustafa@hujra.com
1000 words
07 January 2005
|
