Logo

Logo

Trust the Watchdog

Insurgencies are never won over by political promises, financial ‘packages’ or even overwhelming display of security. It can only be overcome when the citizenry trusts the lawmakers and the law enforcers. Cover-ups are both tempting and convenient in the short run, but are terribly counter-productive in the long term as was revealed in the Samba spy case, also known as the ‘darkest chapter in the Indian Army’.

Trust the Watchdog

(File)

The legitimate ‘monopoly on violence’ is constitutionally reposed in the security forces, not to perpetuate more violence in society but to act as the optimum deterrence to any violence, both internal and external. The geographical, functional and federal compulsions warrant a complex network of various security forces that operate in their respective domains and occasionally intermingle to ensure the overall sovereignty and constitutional certitudes. In the Indian context of participative democracy, the security forces are subordinate to the civilian-political leadership and hence do not hold an independent view, that could violate the policies as determined by the government.

Therefore, unlike in Pakistan, where the ‘red-lines’ of societal governance are defined by its military – the Indian security forces defend society, not define it. This contrasting position between two neighbours leads to a situation where the Pakistani military has carried out its own agenda from the Rawalpindi General Headquarters (GHQ) e.g. in Kargil or its vested interest in keeping Kashmir boiling to maintain its own institutional relevance. The contrasting reality of legislative superiority in India structurally controls the actions of the security forces to within the confines of national policy as defined by the civilianpolitical leadership, thereby negating opportunities for unconstitutional recklessness.

However, while the structural wiring of the Indian security forces may not allow an independent agenda of its own, it can still make the Indian security forces susceptible to negative operational perceptions on account of adhering to questionable tasks ordered by the political dispensation of the day in the state, or at the Centre. Also, the operational tasks as mandated to the security forces can also result in individual cases of corruption, malfeasance and at times, even starkly anti-national activities that ultimately bring disrepute to the institution. Loose talk and perceptions of a ‘fascist state’ or a ‘police state’ are often the result of misusing the security forces towards an oppressive or political agenda, as legitimised and defended by the overall civilianpolitical leadership.

Advertisement

By itself, no state/central armed police force or the detachment of the Indian defence force can commit itself to an area, event or operation without explicit authorisation. Unfortunately, the nature of operations and the matrix of the state police forces are such that they have considerable utility, relevance. Therefore, interference by the political forces that inculcate unwanted partisanship, bias and even ‘cover’ for corruption are unacceptable. This atrophies the institutional culture of state police forces, stymies professionalism and breeds institutional tolerance towards individual acts of unprofessionalism.

This is unlike the Armed Forces which still retains much higher levels of intolerance towards individual acts of malfeasance. The wholly unsatisfactory and the very-forgiving spectacle of ‘temporarily dismissing’ and ‘sending on leave’ errant police personnel can cause incalculable disservice to the public perception, respect and dignity of the police forces, as a whole. Very often errant law enforcers are caught in the act, only to have their previous trackrecord exposed, which can be replete with previous misdemeanours.

For whatever reasons and obviously larger stakes involved, the earlier delinquency of such officials is routinely forgiven- and-forgotten and they invariably return to their service to repeat and at times, worsen their wrongdoings. In sharp contrast to the much debated incident of tying-up a civilian to a jeep in the Kashmir Valley, which led to discordant voices that either slammed or contexualised the necessity of the action, it is important to note, that it was the last time that such an act was perpetrated by an Indian Army official, irrespective of the opinion on the same.

The crux of the matter lies in the complex and vested stakes involved in the policing services and the overall culture of ‘normalising’ prior misdemeanour. The curious case of Davinder Singh, DSP of J&K Police ferrying terrorists is one such case of a cultural rot that could have been avoided, had his obviously blemished service record entailing multiple and serious accusations been taken more seriously. The inexplicable laxity and tolerance afforded earlier is then magnified by a seemingly opaque and uncomfortable silence surrounding the person’s antecedents. Indeed counter-insurgency is an asymmetric and most unfair realm, where one set of perpetrators act in the most unrestrained fashion while the other group is expected to control the former in the most ethical and legally defined way, often at the cost of their lives.

This is the ultimate price paid by law enforcers that ought to elevate them in the imagination of the citizenry. Most brave policemen have upheld that solemn duty, but a few succumb to either some form of lure, indulgence or sheer power-trapping, and this has irreparable implications for the institution and the affected citizenry. Trust is the most important trigger of societal transformation. It accepts the sovereign conditionality, constitutionality and rationality. Most particularly in the areas affected by insurgency, the security forces are the most visible arm of governance and the same must uphold the professional tenets without any institutional compromise, distrust or oppressive agenda.

The state must have the humility to acknowledge a wrong committed by any security person not because it diminishes either the institution or the state itself , but because it reiterates and absolves the institution from harbouring any sinister agenda, that is easily linked to that of the individual act of wrongdoing. The security forces must never be collectively seen to be condoning wrong or supporting excesses. Insurgencies are never won over by political promises, financial ‘packages’ or even overwhelming display of security. It can only be overcome when the citizenry trusts the lawmakers and the law enforcers.

Cover-ups are both tempting and convenient in the short run, but are terribly counter-productive in the long term as was revealed in the Samba spy case also known as the ‘darkest chapter in the Indian Army’. This is another lesson that will hopefully never be forgotten. Whatever be the truth in the case of the J&K DSP, it should be honestly brought to light, as it would build invaluable trust amongst the disaffected citizenry, for the police forces, and by that extension to the nation as a whole.

(The writer IS Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry)

Advertisement