I would not have survived 35 years in the Indian Police Service had the Delhi police not put the Police Commissioner system in place in 1977. The reason was that I had personally experienced a wasteful, intrusive and rather ‘amateurish’ oversight by some greenhorns belonging to the Indian Administrative Service, or the direct recruits from the State Civil Service who were in their first ever job in the field. This was in the areas of law and order, crime control, issuance of certain regulations and keeping control of administrative policy-making decisions, plus administering budgetary controls. I felt it was an intrusive overlap, and without any constructive and supportive oversight.

I recall many a demonstration when I was in-charge of the New Delhi district. As district police chiefs, we had to wait for the young, greenhorn sub-divisional magistrates (SDMs) to arrive and ‘oblige’ us by signing a ‘prior’ approval to disperse crowds! Of course, we had an informal understanding that we would not wait for their orders if the situation so demanded. But the truth is that most often they had to be called merely to fulfil this stipulated formality. And each time they did so, it appeared as if they were doing the police department a favour, because if they did not, it could have been construed as a violation of the law under the Police Act of 1861.

So much for our policing in 2009. While one can justifiably blame the legislatures for this gross negligence, the bigger responsibility is of the babudom from the civil services who have consistently failed to pursue the matter to ensure action from the legislators. The fact that Indian policing is still administered by the Act of 1861 is clearly more a failure of the bureaucracy rather than of the legislators.

For me personally, the dual control on many levels of crime control, law and order management was pretty sickening. As a professional officer, I felt that I was not being trusted, despite having been extensively trained and professionally prepared through my formative years at professional academies. One ought to have been made more accountable and not compelled to depend upon these minimally trained ‘endorsers’ (on police issues) who had to be kept in good humour merely so that I could perform my unending duties. Unfortunately, this continues to be the state of affairs in every police district today. And more so in areas where there is no police commissioner system.

 

Who is responsible for blocking a change in the system? It is the same ‘endorsers’, who else? Today the country has only a handful of cities with the commissioner system is in place. A denial of this system has only deprived the police system and stopped its accountability from growing in the country. A failure to expand this system has only resulted in keeping the police dependent on the bureaucracy. The tragedy is that the police services have been systematically deprived of building a courageous, independent and self-confident leadership. This would have resulted in keeping the ‘endorsers’ and ‘controllers’ in their rightful place. Further, it would have left them free to focus on development, which is their core responsibility.

The police commissionerate gave young officers like me greater responsibility linked to accountability. We were entrusted with enabling powers to deal with unlawful assembly without waiting for formal endorsements. As such there was no question of offering excuses and fewer instances of blame games.

The police commissioner system was most effective in crime prevention. Some actions could have been performed by the endorsers/controllers with a sense of urgency and commitment, such as the externment of bad characters from their places of residence, or initiating peace proceedings between two parties where a breach of peace was apprehended, or attachment of lands in cases where a breach of peace was anticipated due to land disputes, traffic bottlenecks or other law and order regulations such as tenant verification, carrying of arms and ammunition, among others.

All this and much more are in the domain of the home departments run by the IAS (Indian Administrative Service) where the police districts do not have a police commissioner system. Why is there a need for this to be administered by the civil services? If the police commissioner system can be successfully put in place for Delhi, Pune, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Gurgaon among others, why cannot the same system be thought fit for Lucknow, Patna, Guwahati, Jaipur, Bhopal, Amritsar, and other cities with a size of population as recommended by the various commissions. But if truth be told, all the recommendations are gathering dust in the offices of the home departments run by the administrative bureaucracy.

 

It is because the IAS officers at the helm have neither endorsed the transition nor relinquished their control over the system. They have resisted all attempts to let go of their control over the police. So when the police is seen as a failure, who is held accountable and sacked? Has one ever heard of the departure of a Home Secretary? Who are they? Does the common man ever get to see them?

It is said that civil servants wear thick skins. As an officer stated at one of our internal group dialogues, ‘Civil servants have been given the same job in the Indian political and administrative sphere. Like the European white man’s burden, they too have the responsibility of ensuring that everyone does his job sincerely. This takes up so much of their time and energy that little time is left to complete their own work.’ This is easily observed at any meeting of a district magistrate where he has so much to lecture about, and so much to say to guide everyone, that nothing is finally left for him to do. That is what you call, ‘the best of both worlds’.

 

Here is some more from yet another group dialogue. The identities have been deliberately concealed.

‘Last week Maj Gen…called on me. He was an esteemed instructor during our degree course days, and...officers would remember him as one of our finest... Indeed, he spent most of his time with... He was commissioned in June... and was in the... sector during the 1962 debacle. He has analyzed the event systematically, and his study reveals the following:

Pandit Nehru, the architect of modern India, suffered a severe stroke of depression from which he never quite recovered. He died in May 1964 at the comparatively young age of 73. V.K. Krishna Menon was removed from the post of Raksha Mantri for his incorrect assessment of the situation. Gen. Thapar, the COAS was sacked. The careers of Lt. Gen. Kaul and scores of other military officers took a ‘U’ turn; a few thousand soldiers died and many more were wounded while some were taken prisoner. The psyche of the country received a severe blow. It was considered a national shame.

The question he asked me was, ‘Who was the Defence Secretary? And what was the punishment meted out to him?’ I have asked several friends and also surfed the internet but I am unable to find an answer. In all probability nothing happened to him, because he had no role in this!

 

The General then took the discussion a step further. He observed that during the recent attack on Mumbai, dozens of soldiers and policemen were killed. The whole nation was shaken. Shivraj Patil lost his prestigious job as a minister. The chief minister of Maharashtra has been axed and several heads in the government are likely to roll. Can someone tell us as to what action has been taken against the Union and the state Home Secretaries or the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra? (It is whispered that they will all soon be ‘promoted’ or re-employed, as is the practice, though he does not know why).’

‘Having spent many years in and around the South Block, I marvel at the way our government has been structured. The civil servants rule the roost. In terms of promotions and status they are ahead of everyone else by miles. They are central to the deliberations of Pay Commission and the Cabinet Secretary is involved in every major decision-making process. Yet, when things go wrong, they wash their hands off so cleverly that one can only marvel!’

‘A slightly closer examination reveals the secret. I have figured it out in the following way:

* They never do anything themselves. They always find someone else to be the head and they know how to reduce him to being a ‘figurehead’. (In the Pay Commissions, they have a retired judge). However, they cleverly place themselves on the spot which has the maximum opportunity to influence matters.

* After the event, they never face the press or the media. Their role is amorphous.

* The senior amongst them rarely sign a letter or order. The letter regarding our pension is signed by a Director, who is not a directly recruited IAS officer. Only rarely does one find a paper signed by a Joint Secretary. Officers above that level do not sign any document.

* They have a strong association. It dutifully and diligently protects the interests of its members.’

‘So we have our Defence Headquarters in which the postings, promotions, rewards and punishments of all senior officers are controlled by the civil servants. They also have the final say in the process of procurement of weapons and equipment, but they are not "responsible" if things go wrong! It is an authority without responsibility. (For those who may not know, a lowly officer in the MoD can ensure that a Deputy Chief is posted out, but a defence services chief cannot even get a desk officer moved).’

When the General left, I found myself perplexed. What sort of system have we evolved? And how has it survived all these years? It is a bit like a unit in which the clerks are running the unit and the CO is so dependent on the head clerk that he cannot move without his help!

Can some one give a cogent answer to the questions raised by the General? A post script (provided by another one our team member) goes as follows.

 

Politicians wear the dress of the people they represent to identify themselves with the masses. Soldiers and policemen wear uniforms. Can someone tell me what the civil servants wear? The answer came from the wag who said: ‘Civil servants (barring exceptions) wear thick skins.’

The million dollar question that begs for an answer is: who will set this right? No one else, but honest and clear headed professional politicians. That is a rare breed.