Serve and protect?

The Police should not be given even more draconian powers than they already have

I read something interesting in the papers a few weeks ago. While scanning through all the usual reports of rape, murder, scams and other items of good cheer, I found a piece about a car chase straight out of the movies. During a routine nakabandi in a western suburb of Mumbai, police personnel manning the road block noticed a car slowing down in the distance, pulling a quick U-turn and speeding off in the opposite direction. The cops gave chase, alerting other units in the vicinity, and they soon caught up with the car and forced it to a halt. Inside the car were a young woman and man, who, according to the police, stepped out and began arguing with them. The cops further said that the man had been drinking and didn’t have a driving license; the last I read of the case, he had been released on bail and his blood-alcohol level test result was pending.

What’s interesting about this, you ask? I’ll tell you. The report also mentioned that the police were going to recommend that the man’s passport be revoked, and that an official circular be issued so that he would find it difficult to gain employment from here on in. This was in line with Mumbai Police Commissioner Satyapal Singh’s recommendation – if you assault a cop, you should lose your passport, driver's license or job, maybe all three. Lookout notices will be put up at airports. The police will send 'adverse reports' to your employers. Consolidated lists will be maintained at police stations, to ensure offenders don't slip through jurisdictional loopholes. Now, I have no problem with someone who is driving without a valid license being fined and/or sent to jail – if it turns out that he had been drinking on top of that, he is in no position to argue about anything.

The point, however, is that in the police’s own description, he did not physically assault them – all he did was argue and, no doubt, use intemperate language; he certainly didn’t seem to pose any bodily threat. I think it’s ludicrous for the police to want to revoke his passport, hurt his employment prospects and generally treat him as if he had just blown up the police headquarters, all because he argued with them. "So what?", is my opinion. They’re hardened policemen, for heaven’s sake – they can’t take a few words shouted in anger by an idiot who knows his number is up?

Would Commissioner Singh have the gumption to issue a similar recommendation with regard to the police force itself? The next time a policeman abuses someone or tortures a suspect in custody, will those people be able to have the cops’ passports revoked? When they demand bribes, assault unarmed protesters, rape women or dismiss rapes as inconsequential, ‘encounter’ people in cold blood, harass you at every second traffic signal and generally tell you that "It's not our problem", will the public be able to send ‘adverse reports’ to the cops’ employers and ensure that their job prospects are jeopardised? Call me cynical, but I think not.

The police in this country have an incredibly tough job, admittedly – theirs is a thankless task, inside and out. This doesn’t mean that they should be given even more draconian powers than they already have, to use as yet another stick against the public. It doesn’t matter if you’re a policeman or an ordinary Joe – everyone should be held equally accountable under the law, and the police certainly have no moral right to put themselves on some sort of God-like pedestal. Think about that, Mr. Singh.