Articulating police problems

A conference of police officers in the United Kingdom throws light on issues that are germane to contemporary policing in India.

THE bane of policing in many countries is the failure of the leaders of the police force to speak up on problems of command and their general expectation of mute conformity from subordinates. This is a culture that has been fostered for more than one hundred years, possibly ever since the profession acquired a structure as we recognise it today, in the form of the London Metropolitan Police. This almost culpable preference for reticence and obedience derives from a false notion that a uniformed and disciplined force cannot countenance internal dissent or promote a challenge to the constitutional authority that has ultimate democratic control over it.

The specious premise here is that any debate within police ranks, however objective and merited it might be, leads necessarily to a conflict that is capable of impairing unified and swift field operations.

This school of thought that frowns upon a clash of ideas has been the undoing of professionalism in many national police organisations, including the one in India. The picture is changing, albeit slowly, with the arrival of new recruits who are better educated than their predecessors and who have been exposed to modern management concepts. This is why I found it refreshing to be present at the just concluded annual conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) where I listened to some outstanding discourses on a variety of subjects that are germane to contemporary policing. Views aired at the impressive National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham were neither heretical nor inflammatory, but definitely showed courage and an ability on the part of Chiefs, Deputies and Assistant Chief Constables to analyse policy options realistically, even if this meant giving the hint of an anti-establishment stance.

Inaugurated by Home Secretary David Blunkett, a strong personality who, despite an uneasy earlier relationship, now seems to enjoy tangible support within the U.K. Police for many of his bold initiatives, the conference discussed a wide spectrum of issues. The themes addressed included "Leadership and standards", "Police reform and the future" and "Performance in an international context". Deputy Chief Constable Sara Thornton of the Thames Valley Police (said to be the country's third largest force with headquarters near Oxford) set the tone for the three-day meet with her brilliant strategic assessment of current challenges to policing in the areas of curbing anti-social behaviour and satisfying the local community's confidence needs.

The deliberations on "police reform", a term used in the Indian context, which is almost synonymous with the demand for reducing the impact of political interference in police decisions, were illuminating. That very little has been achieved in this direction in our country does not astonish me any longer, given the quality of those who are empowered by the public to legislate on policing. This does not, however, seem to be a problem in the U.K. which has built an enviable system that hardly permits anyone in authority dictating to the police in the manner in which it is done so crudely in our country. (Many present and past Indian police officers like me will never forgive the British for giving themselves a nearly tamper-proof policing system, while at the same time imposing on their colonies a set-up that has many holes.)

It was clear from the conference that U.K. police leaders are concerned more about adapting police mechanics to the changing nature of police responsibilities in the context of a galloping fragmentation of society and the unrestrained growth of individualism. They do not understand us when we describe the nearly symbiotic relationship between politics and policing that has become the fate of Indian Police. Incidentally, unlike in India, external overseeing of police work in the U.K. is through a Police Authority for each of the 43 forces that is broadly representative of the community, an arrangement that rarely allows the gross illegal directions on handling of criminal investigations to which we are so accustomed in India. Police Authority members, 17 each in many forces, lay down policy and can never interfere in criminal investigations or matters of day-to-day internal administration. Over many decades, a code of ethics has evolved that would repel any attempt to bring political pressure on police operations. This ambience, likely to be incomprehensible to those in the Indian Police, actively promotes a focus on how to enhance the quality of delivery of service rather than a dissipation of energy on mundane matters such as postings of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, the staple diet of many of our legislators.

ONE major argument advanced by a large majority of those who are opposed to conferring greater autonomy on the police is that a freer police force will become irresponsible. Peter Neyroud, the brilliant Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, who is widely recognised as a "thinking policeman", has other ideas on this crucial aspect of policing. According to him, the accountability versus autonomy debate is inane, because a police force sans accountability is inconceivable. He believes the two are complementary and not contradictory. Policymakers and police practitioners should rather devote themselves to identifying what the police should be accountable for, rather than to whom. In his estimate, the major dimensions of police accountability in the current context are operational performance, the handling of critical incidents, compliance with specific legal responsibilities and a more general accountability to the rule of law.

Here, his emphasis on sensitivity to local neighbourhood demands and requirements was refreshing. He lamented that police responses were more and more being dictated by the desire to conform to a National Policing Plan, instead of being tuned to local priorities. While the former was no doubt important, it should not subsume the aspirations of the local community. We often talk of law and order and terrorism and use performance on this front to measure police effectiveness. In this process, we tend to ignore what an average citizen expects from the police by way of reduction of his fear of crime and keeping the small-time local thug at bay so that he does not cause annoyance to the law-abiding members of the community. This probably is the simplest way of describing what neighbourhood policing is all about.

Neyroud is of the opinion that centrally set agendas, however meaningful they may be, render policing distant from local citizens. This is a real danger that all police leaders in India should recognise amidst their anxiety to achieve excellence in areas such as counter-insurgency and investigation of economic offences and cyber crime. This is unfortunate because the police cannot remain archaic and will have to necessarily learn to cope with deviance of the modern variety as well. At the same time, the present situation calls for an imaginative fusing of modern policing with traditional community expectations at the grassroots level.

Discussions on the theme "Diversity" highlighted a major problem of internal administration in the U.K. forces. The task of making the police more representative of the minorities that are prominent in society is complex. Those responsible for making the police policy are no doubt sensitive and proactive. One can, however, perceive black police officers being not wholly convinced that enough has been done to end all traditional discriminatory practices. There was a passionate yet dignified espousal of their cause by representatives of the Black Police Officers' Association at the Birmingham conference. The scene is analogous to the United States where also black policemen feel slighted.

The Indian Police is not free from this crosscurrent either, although not many officers would admit to its existence. I know of hard feelings on the subject among sections of the police that remain under the carpet. It is debatable whether one could lend official sanction to denominational grouping of police officers in an ambience where loyalties are split on the basis of castes and religion.

INTERESTINGLY, the ACPO conference was accompanied at the same venue by an exhibition of modern equipment and computer hardware and software by a large number of manufacturers and suppliers from the U.K. and elsewhere. I was particularly struck by a variety of patrol and forensic laboratory vehicles on display. Mobile computing has become the order of the day, and vehicles providing access to crime databases for patrolmen on the street are now common. One car at the exhibition carried cameras at the rear that could capture the licence plates of speeding vehicles, facilitating a quick check through a computer carrying a centralised database that is positioned by the side of the policeman at the wheel. Greater use of such vehicles could somewhat deter overspeeding. One exhibit was a single handy computer-cum-recorder unit that could simultaneously monitor conversations over five telephone lines. This could be a valuable aid to police forces struggling to keep a tab on terrorist organisations that have spread their tentacles beyond belief.

At one of the seminars on forensic issues held at the conference, there was some encouraging news that research on fabricating a computer device that would establish the DNA profile of a suspect as soon as he is held for questioning is in an advanced stage. When this ultimately succeeds, investigations that are stalled by abnormal delays at central laboratories could be speeded up considerably. DNA testing is an expensive proposition and very few countries can afford to set up more than a couple of laboratories devoted to this.

The ACPO conference was a rewarding experience. Such occasions engender faith in the ability of police forces to learn and adapt themselves. Incidentally, the ACPO, established in July 1948, is a vibrant body that encourages liberal thinking on policing issues on the part of Chief, Deputy and Assistant Constables in the U.K. Set up in recognition of the need to develop policing policies from one central place, it has encouraged local initiatives in policing within the tripartite framework of Chief Constables, local Police Authorities and the Home Secretary. Devoted to achieving excellence in policing that is firmly rooted in ethical practices, it has done splendid work in rendering advice to the U.K. government, Police Authorities and other relevant organisations. Its charter makes it clear that it is not a staff association that promotes trade unionism. Consequently, it represents the police as a profession and not its individual members. It is this character that renders the ACPO a credible body to which the government can look up for sagely advice on contentious police matters.

In India, the Indian Police Service Association has played a modest role in influencing government policy in a limited range of professional issues. Unfortunately, its credentials have often been questioned because it has also sought to look after the service conditions of IPS officers who are regarded as an elitist group. This is one reason why the Indian Police needs to be served by a permanent organisation such as the ACPO that is distinct and apart from the IPS Association, to articulate policing issues. No doubt, occasions such as the annual DGP's conference in New Delhi give an opportunity to let the government know what senior police leaders think of various matters that impinge on policing in the country. This conference does not, however, have a standing body that could meet periodically to formulate policy recommendations.