Why Police fails in India

Broken System

Dysfunction, Abuse, and Impunity in the Indian Police

Glossary and Abbreviations

India: Overhaul Abusive, Failing Police System

Disrepair of Police Forces and Lack of Accountability Contribute to Rights Violations'

Bandobast	Literally “      discipline,” refers to police duties such as patrolling events and security work
chowki	Police s       tructure designated as an outpost
Circle Officer	Officer in     charge of a police circle, which consists of a few police stations
Daily Diary	Record       police must keep under Police Act of 1861 that includes information regarding complainants, charges, persons arrested, property police take into possession, and witnesses police examine
Dalit	Literally      broken people, a term for so-called “untouchables” who   traditionally occupied the lowest place in the Hindu caste system
DGP	Director     General of Police, the highest-ranking police official of each state police organization
FIR	FirsT  ormation Report, the recorded complaint of a crime filed by police
hijra	male-to-female transgender individuals, typically working-class
IPS	Indian Police Service, the cadre of senior police administered by the central government
lathi	Literally “stick,” the long baton-type weapon carried by most police
munshi	Literally “the writer,” a police officer who maintains records
NHRC	National Human Rights Commission
pradhan	Village official
SP	Superintendent of Police, in charge of a police district
SHRC	State Human Rights Commission
SI	Sub-inspector
SHO	Station house officer
SO	Station officer, the same as a station house officer
thana	Police station

Rank Structure of the Indian Police

I. Summary

“This week, I was told to do an ‘encounter,’” a police officer we will call Officer Singh told Human Rights Watch in January 2009. He was referring to the practice of taking into custody and extrajudicially executing an individual, then claiming that the victim died after initiating a shoot-out with police. “I am looking for my target,” he said. “I will eliminate him.”

Working in Uttar Pradesh, Officer Singh is the kind of police officer who should be in prison for misusing his authority. Instead he is protected by his superiors. It is in this way that impunity continues to thrive in India—and the reputation of the police continues to slide.

But as we spoke to Officer Singh, we heard about other aspects of the reality of policing in India. Officer Singh said he had hardly a day off since he began working as a sub-inspector, or investigating officer, for the Uttar Pradesh police ten years ago. “I’ve slept ten hours in the last three days. How is a person who hasn’t slept in three days supposed to behave properly?” he asked. “The pressure cooker will burst.”

Officer Singh described hours crammed with too many duties: 

patrolling events, escorting VIPs, investigating crime, and, he added without hesitation, fabricating police records. He said he was working on a murder case but had at best a few hours at night to devote to solving it. “I sent evidence to the forensic lab five months ago, but the case is still pending,” he said. Nonetheless, he said he was under tremendous pressure from superiors to solve the case, or face suspension.
 He admitted that in the past, in similar straits, he had beaten suspects to elicit confessions–that’s what his superiors expected of him. “It is presumed that I’m doing it,” he told Human Rights Watch. “It’s done before them. Sometimes they are doing it.”

Despite his willingness to beat people he determines are criminals—and he made it clear that he had beaten many—Officer Singh said he did not initially intend to be a dishonest and abusive crime fighter. “No one is born corrupt. It’s a tailor-made system: if you’re not corrupt, you won’t survive.”

*              *              *

Officer Singh’s admissions, though disturbing, would likely be unremarkable to many Indian police officers, criminal suspects, lawyers and other observers. While India rightly touts itself as an emerging economic powerhouse that is also the world’s largest democracy, its police forces—the most visible arm of the Indian state—are widely regarded within India as lawless, abusive and ineffective.

A dangerous anachronism, the police have largely failed to evolve from the ruler-supportive, repressive forces they were designed to be under Britain’s colonial rule. While sixty years later much of India is in the process of rapid modernization, the police continue to use their old methods. Instead of policing through public consent and participation, the police use abuse and threats as a primary crime investigation and law enforcement tactic. 

The institutional culture of police practically discourages officers from acting otherwise, failing to give them the resources, training, ethical environment, and encouragement to develop professional police tactics. Many officers even told Human Rights Watch that they were ordered or expected to commit abuses.

In its research, Human Rights Watch examined these two separate, but linked issues: abuses by the police against individuals, usually criminal suspects, and the conditions that facilitated and encouraged police to commit those abuses. 

Our findings, when read alongside other work that has been done by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the media and even some government bodies, make it clear that misbehavior is deeply rooted in institutional practice. It persists and sometimes flourishes due to government failure to hold abusers accountable and to overhaul the structure and practices that enable abusive patterns of behavior. 

Drawing on the extensive existing documentation of human rights abuses by the Indian police, Human Rights Watch conducted its own research and found four clusters of issues warranting attention, addressed in separate subsections of this report: police failure to investigate crimes; arrest on false charges and illegal detention; torture and ill-treatment; and extrajudicial killings.

Traditionally marginalized groups are especially vulnerable to each of the first three abuses. Though stemming from the discriminatory biases of police officers, their vulnerability is also the product of an abusive police culture in which an individual’s ability to pay a bribe, trade on social status or call on political connections often determines whether they will be assisted or abused.

Why do these abuses persist? Part of the problem is the working conditions of individual officers. At the level of the civil police station, where junior and low-ranking police often reside and deal with suspects or victims, we found that civil police, particularly constables, live and work in abysmal conditions. 
They are often exhausted and demoralized, always on call, working long hours without shifts and necessary equipment, only to return to government-provided tents or filthy barracks for a few hours’ sleep. 

Junior-ranking officers often face unrealistic demands from their superiors to solve cases quickly. Even if officially encouraged, their use of professional crime investigation techniques is effectively discouraged by the dearth of time, training and equipment with which they operate. These officers also face frequent intervention in investigations by local political figures, who sometimes act to protect known criminals.

To get around these systemic problems many officers take “short-cuts.” Officers told Human Rights Watch they often cut their caseloads by refusing to register crime complaints. At other times, they use illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment to punish criminals against whom they lack the time or inclination to build cases, or to elicit confessions, even ones they know are false.

Such abuses contribute to a climate of fear. Many Indians avoid any contact with the police, believing not only that they will not receive assistance but that they risk demands for bribes, illegal detention, torture, or even death. Facing a reclusive public, the police are unable to get tips from informants or the cooperation of witnesses, which are both critical to solving cases and preventing crime. This, of course, creates a vicious cycle, as crimes go unreported and unpunished and the pressures on the police to deal with rising criminality increase. 

The government elected in May 2009 has promised to actively pursue police reform. It should start by recognizing the need to transform the institution from one that enables and encourages officers to commit abuse to one that promotes human rights and the rule of law, without exception.

A critical step is holding abusive officers accountable. Those who commit torture or other abuses must be treated as the criminals they are. There cannot be one standard for police who use violence and another for average citizens. At the same time, the incentives must change for police officers. Officers facing suspension if they disobey illegal orders, or fail to meet their superiors’ expectations to solve crimes without the necessary means, have little incentive to abstain from abuse

. In the long-run, a sustainable drop in police abuses requires an overhaul of archaic police laws and structures. Investment in training, personnel and equipment is critical to building the professional, rights-respecting police forces that an emergent India deserves.

The Indian Police: A Dangerous State of Disrepair'

Although the police are tasked with battling India’s most pressing problems—including armed militancy, terrorism, and organized crime—a lack of political commitment and investment by the state has left the police overstretched and ill-equipped. There is just one civil police officer for every 1,037 Indian residents, far below Asia’s regional average of one police officer for 558 people and the global average of 333 people.

Police infrastructure is crumbling. Decaying, colonial-era police stations and posts across India are stocked with antiquated equipment and lack sufficient police vehicles, phones, computers, and even stationery. A severe police staffing shortage is compounded by additional demands on an already stretched force. Police are routinely diverted to protect “VIPs”—usually politicians, business people, and entertainment figures. Senior police officials frequently use low-ranking staff as orderlies and even as personal family servants.

The police structure in India is based on a colonial law that did not provide the lower ranks, usually local recruits, with operational authority or advanced professional training. Inexplicably, that system continues six decades after the end of British rule in India. Constables, the bottom rank, make up as much as 85 percent of the Indian police, but for the most part they are not trained to investigate crime complaints.

Junior and low-ranking police are frequently demoralized due to degrading working and living conditions. Police are under constant stress due to the statutory requirement that they be available for duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week—a grueling reality for the police we interviewed, many of whom said they were hardly ever permitted a day off and some of whom, living in barracks, literally had not been given time to see their families for weeks. Police say they are exhausted and have no time for exercise or recreation. The Director-General of Police in Uttar Pradesh boasted to Human Rights Watch,

If you brought a US policeman here he’d commit suicide within one day. [Here], you are literally thrown against the wall. We don’t have a shift of 8 to 10 hours, it is the system we have: we work 24 hours a day.

Many low-ranking police officers live in barracks that are deteriorating, cramped, and without enough beds. A constable in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, told Human Rights Watch,

It’s just like I’m a prisoner.... There’s no medical facilities, no toilet.

Junior-ranking police officers have little chance of promotion and are subject to the unrealistic demands of senior officers who are for the most part directly recruited into management positions, and often have no firsthand knowledge of the difficulties the lower ranks face.

Political Interference and Stalled Efforts at Reform

Decades of partisan policing—politically motivated refusal to register complaints, arbitrary detention, and torture and killings sometimes perpetrated by police at the behest of national and state politicians—have resulted in an unprecedented level of public distrust and fear of the police. In a culture of shifarish, or favors, only Indians with powerful connections can be confident they will obtain police assistance. 

State and local politicians routinely tell police officers to drop investigations against people with political connections, including known criminals, and to harass or file false charges against political opponents. As one police officer told Human Rights Watch:

The problem is that law enforcement is only possible up to a limit. Anti-social elements are protected by the powerful. Police is supposed to be tough on criminals. But criminals are protected, supported and rewarded, so the police who act against them are helpless. No officer is in a position to protect anyone else. They are barely able to protect themselves.

Police at all ranks say that they fear reprimand or punishment if, in the course of doing their jobs, they act against individuals with political connections.

In 2006, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, Prakash Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, that directed the central and state governments to enact new police laws to reduce political interference. 
Unfortunately, the central government and most state governments have either significantly or completely failed to implement the Court’s order. This suggests that key government officials have yet to accept the rule of law or the urgency of undertaking comprehensive police reform, including the need to make police accountable for widespread human rights violations. 
The Indian government also has yet to recognize the immediate need to improve the working and living conditions of low-ranking police which. While those conditions in no way justify the human rights violations committed by police, addressing them is critical to changing a working environment that facilitates, condones, and encourages such violations.

Human Rights Violations by Police

In this report, Human Rights Watch documented four abuses frequently committed by police in parts of India: failure to investigate crimes, arbitrary arrest and illegal detention, custodial torture, and extrajudicial killings.

Failure to Register Complaints and Investigate Crime

Police in India frequently fail to register crime complaints, called First Information Reports (FIRs), and to investigate crimes. Police officers told Human Rights Watch that they are often under pressure from political leaders to show a reduction in crime by registering fewer FIRs. Some said that they face suspension or reprimand if they register too many. Police also blame their failure to investigate cases on insufficient personnel and a reluctance to take on new cases that add to an already heavy workload.

Traditionally vulnerable communities bear the brunt of this neglect. For instance, according to local NGOs, police often do not register complaints or investigate crimes against Dalits (so-called “untouchables”) under special laws enacted to ensure Dalit protection.

Police, including specially designated Crimes Against Women cells, fail to sufficiently aid victims of domestic violence. According to NGOs and police themselves, police often urge victims to “compromise” with their spouses or spouses’ families, even when women allege repeated and severe physical abuse. 

Women’s rights activists say that police often do not investigate rape cases and re-traumatize victims who approach them for help through their hostile or inadequate response.

 For example, when 16-year-old Sunita (a pseudonym) became pregnant after she was raped by her cousin, her family members in a village near Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh beat her and threatened to kill her. Police refused to register an FIR for the rape, and advised her to get an abortion and marry someone from another village.

Crime victims who are poor are often unable to obtain police assistance. They cannot afford to pay bribes that police ordinarily demand for FIR registration, or for the costs of investigation that victims are expected to cover on behalf of the police. They are less likely to be able to call local political figures to intervene with police on their behalf, while their perpetrators may have police protection due to political connections.

Illegal Arrest and Detention, Police Torture and Ill-Treatment

Police officers sometimes make arrests in retaliation for complaints of police abuse, in return for bribes, or due to political considerations or the influence of powerful local figures. They also admit that they use unlawful coercion, including torture, to elicit confessions to the charges they fabricate. Police often fail to follow procedures mandated by the Supreme Court in DK Basu v. West Bengal, including production of a suspect before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.A Bangalore police officer admitted:

We do use some extralegal methods. You might disagree, but we cannot do all work by the book. Then the police would be completely ineffective.

This failure to “work by the book” is reflected in frequent torture and other ill-treatment of suspects in police custody. Human Rights Watch found that severe ill-treatment sometimes intensifies over the period of an individual’s detention. For instance, in December 2007 police tortured 18-year-old Ram Chandra Prasad, a murder suspect, for five nights in Varanasi to elicit a confession. Prasad told Human Rights Watch:

After they finished tea they pulled off my shirt and trousers. The constable kicked me, and then constables came and held my hands and legs. They drenched me with a bucket of cold water...For one and a half hours, I was beaten like this.... [On the third night] the SI [sub-inspector] and SO [station officer] pressed their feet against my thighs. I felt my veins, it felt like they would burst. They said, “We’ll make you impotent and you’ll be of no use.”

Individuals who are poor and socially or politically marginalized are especially vulnerable to prolonged detention and repeated ill-treatment because they are unable to bribe police to secure their release and are unlikely to have connections to local political figures who can intervene. Twenty-year-old Pradeep Singh died after suffering a severe beating by police in Chitti, Dhankaur, Uttar Pradesh, in January 2007. According to Singh’s family, police arrested Pradeep with two other men. Police released the other two after they paid a police bribe. But Singh’s family, Dalits with little money, were unable to pay the police. Singh’s grandfather Kedara, age 83, visited him in lockup before he died:

When I looked at him, I felt very sad. He couldn’t stand up straight. Why? We are poor people. We don’t have money to give to them. And if it’s our caste, then they beat up all the more.... We don’t have money ourselves, where do we give money to police from? If we gave the police [money], probably it would have helped my boy.

Human Rights Watch’s investigations found that the police sometimes fail to provide arrested children with the special protections afforded under India’s Juvenile Justice Act, such as the requirement to present any detained child before a special Juvenile Justice Board within 24 hours of arrest. Several boys in Bangalore described how police subjected them to electric shocks and prolonged beatings.

Socially and politically marginalized communities are subject to frequent sexual and physical harassment and street beatings by police. Members of the hijra community in Bangalore said that physical harassment and abuse by police had become increasingly routine since 2007.

Bangalore sex workers described police beatings and sexual harassment. One woman told Human Rights Watch,

I was standing on the street. It was quite deserted. A policeman came and slapped me and beat me up very badly. I was lying on the ground. When I begged for water, he unzipped his pants and offered his penis.

Some police officers admit that “using force” to elicit confessions from criminal suspects is their primary investigation tool, rather than gathering forensic evidence and witness accounts. False confessions lead police to gather faulty evidence, which frequently results in cases being thrown of out of court or wrongful convictions.

Impunity for Extrajudicial Killings

Officer Singh, discussed above, described to Human Rights Watch how senior officers boast of ordering killings.

The SP [superintendent of police] will say, “Under my regime, so many criminals were “encountered.” I fear being put in jail, but if I don’t do it, I’ll lose my position.

While the practice is not the norm in most of India, fake encounter killings occur frequently. Many take place in Singh’s Uttar Pradesh state, where the National Human Rights Commission reported 201 complaints of such killings in 2007, more than any other state.

Police are usually the only eyewitnesses to these alleged encounters, which are typically carried out by junior and low-ranking police. Considering the long history and scale of this practice, it is likely that state officials and senior police are not only aware of these killings, but allow, unofficially sanction or even order these killings.

Criminal suspects or their family members are frequently the targets of fake encounter killings. In the cases Human Rights Watch documented, the facts strongly suggested the implausibility of official accounts of the killings.

For instance, Sugriv Singh Yadav, accused of several crimes, died on August 6, 2008, in Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh. According to police, Yadav was shot dead while fleeing on a motorbike after he and three others stole a mobile phone and 10,000 rupees (about US$210) from a man who then complained to the police. But according to an attorney for Yadav’s family: “The motorbike that the robbers were using had not a drop of petrol in it. There was no blood at the site of the incident where Sugriv was apparently shot.”

Obstacles to Police Accountability

Police can usually commit extrajudicial killings with impunity. The Indian media and NGOs have documented hundreds of such killings but their efforts at accountability have been hampered by systematic police deniability. The absence of records, including in many cases a post-mortem examination or registry of arrest and detention, makes it very difficult to disprove the police’s account.

In some cases, police deny any knowledge of or responsibility for killings, even when the subject was last seen alive in police custody. For instance, police deny any involvement in the June 18, 2006, death of Abdul Khalid in Uttar Pradesh state, even though his wife Sakia Begum witnessed his arrest that night. She believes he was later killed in custody and his body was abandoned in a field near her house. Immediately after the arrest, she ran to the police station but found it locked and empty. She told Human Rights Watch:

We were looking all over for him.... Meanwhile, our neighbors called the police to say that there was a body lying in the field near our house. The police took my son there for identification. It was my husband.

Independent investigations are critical to reducing impunity, but despite the presence of the national human rights commissions and their state counterparts, they are rare in much of India.

Police investigations, either initiated by police or undertaken at the direction of external agencies, are often ineffective due to a “code of silence” that makes police unlikely to disclose incriminating evidence. In the absence of an independent investigation, officers who issue illegal orders or pressure subordinates to carry out abuses can lay the blame exclusively on their subordinates.

Criminal prosecution has the potential to check police abuse, but victims often do not file cases because they fear police retaliation. Another major obstacle is section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides immunity from prosecution to all public officials unless the government approves the prosecution.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has the authority to recommend an independent investigation either by another division of the local police or by the Central Bureau of Investigation, but this often results in the police effectively investigating itself. Even where this is done with integrity, the process does not have the appearance of independence and impartiality, leaving victims and families suspicious of the process.

In most cases the NHRC only recommends that state governments provide victims with interim compensation. The award of compensation to victims without proper prosecutions of officers who commit the crimes and their superiors who order them is inadequate to halt recurring violations. The country’s 18 state human rights commissions (SHRCs) vary greatly in resources and willingness to act, and local lawyers and activists describe SHRC staff as inadequate in number, lacking human rights training, and biased against complaints, factors that lead them to routinely defer to police accounts of a given incident.

Even in the exceptional case in which action is taken, the punishment most often consists of temporary suspension or transfer of the offending officer to another police station. Until officers know that they will be prosecuted, fired, or their careers seriously damaged for engaging in abusive behavior, the problem will not go away.

POLITICS AND BUSINESS

Political Factors Affecting Business

There are many external environmental factors that can affect your business. It is common for managers to assess each of these factors closely. The aim is always to take better decisions for the firm’s progress. Some common factors are political, economic, social and technological  Companies also study environmental, legal, ethical and demographical factors.

The political factors affecting business are often given a lot of importance. Several aspects of government policy can affect business. All firms must follow the law. Managers must find how upcoming legislations can affect their activities.

The political environment can impact business organizations in many ways. It could add a risk factor and lead to a major loss.  You should understand that the political factors have the power to change results. It can also affect government policies at local to federal level. Companies should be ready to deal with the local and international outcomes of politics.

Changes in the government policy make up the political factors. The change can be economic, legal or social. It could also be a mix of these factors.

Increase or decrease in tax could be an example of a political element. Your government might increase taxes for some companies and lower it for others. The decision will have a direct effect on your businesses. So, you must always stay up-to-date with such political factors. Government interventions like shifts in interest rate can have an effect on the demand patterns of company.

Certain factors create Inter-linkages in many ways. Some examples are:

·        Political decisions affect the economic environment.

·        Political decisions influence the country’s socio-cultural environment.

·        Politicians can influence the rate of emergence of new technologies.

·        Politicians can influence acceptance of new technologies.

The political environment is perhaps among the least predictable elements in the business environment. A cyclical political environment develops, as democratic governments have to pursue re-election every few years. This external element of business includes the effects of pressure groups. Pressure groups tend to change government policies.

As political systems in different areas vary, the political impact differs. The country’s population democratically elects open government system. In totalitarian systems, government’s power derives from a select group.

Corruption is a barrier to economic development for many countries. Some firms survive and grow by offering bribes to government officials. The success and growth of these companies are not based on the value they offer to consumers.

Below, is a list of political factors affecting business:

·        Bureaucracy

·        Corruption level

·        Freedom of the press

·        Tariffs

·        Trade control

·        Education Law

·        Anti-trust law

·        Employment law

·        Discrimination law

·        Data protection law

·        Environmental Law

·        Health and safety law

·        Competition regulation

·        Regulation and deregulation

·        Tax policy (tax rates and incentives)

·        Government stability and related changes

·        Government involvement in trade unions and agreements

·        Import restrictions on quality and quantity of product

·        Intellectual property law (Copyright, patents)

·        Consumer protection and e-commerce

·        Laws that regulate environment pollution

There are 4 main effects of these political factors on business organizations. They are:

·        Impact on economy

·        Changes in regulation

·        Political stability

·        Mitigation of risk

Impact on economy

The political situation of a country affects its economic setting. The economic environment affects the business performance.

For example, there are major differences in Democratic and Republican policies in the US. This influences factors like taxes and government spending, which ultimately affect the economy. A greater level of government spending often stimulates the economy.

Changes in regulation

Governments could alter their rules and regulations. This could in turn have an effect on a business.

After the accounting scandals of the early 21st century, the US SEC became more attentive on corporate compliance. The government introduced the Sarbanes-Oxley compliance regulations of 2002. This was a reaction to the social environment. The social environment urged a change to make public companies more liable.

Political Stability

Lack of political stability in a country effects business operations. This is especially true for the companies which operate internationally.

For example, an aggressive takeover could overthrow a government. This could lead to riots, looting and general disorder in the environment. These disrupt business operations. Sri Lanka was in a similar state during a civil war. Egypt and Syria faced disturbances too.

Mitigation of Risk

Buying political risk insurance is a way to manage political risk. Companies that have international operations use such insurance to reduce their risk exposure.

There are some indices that give an idea of the risk exposure in certain countries. The index of economic freedom is a good example. It ranks countries based on how politics impacts business decisions there.

The importance of observing the political environment

Firms should track their political environment. Change in the political factors can affect business strategy because of the following reasons:

·        The stability of a political system can affect the appeal of a particular local market.

·        Governments view business organizations as a critical vehicle for social reform.

·        Governments pass legislation, which impacts the relationship between the firm and its customers, suppliers, and other companies.

·        The government is liable for protecting the public interest.

·        Government actions influence the economic environment.

·        Government is a major consumer of goods and services.