Safety and security are core needs of human beings. Police performs this basic function and is the most visible coercive arm of the State. Perceptions of police efficacy matter because on them hinges the very legitimacy of the State. Police is to the government as the edge is to the knife. Lately, the knife is appearing to be more and more blunted. Despite all the attention and acrimonious TV debates, very little has actually been done to address or even identify core issues. The truth is police effectiveness is a long haul and everyone is looking for a quick fix.
Effectiveness, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. Providing universally acceptable measures of effective policing is however not so easy. Good policing means different things to different groups. For rich and middle-classes, it primarily means maintaining status quo and crime control; whereas for poor and underclass citizens, it signifies protection of rights and fairness (Sung, 2002).
Simply put, more powerful segments of society expect the police to bring order, and powerless want police to ensure protection against exploitation & injustice. As a conceptual construct, policing has two basic dimensions: “Hard” and “Soft.” Hard measures are essentially concerned with performance outcomes, not process activities. Totalitarian States normally embrace these aspects and are generally quite effective in suppressing crime and maintaining order. However, coercive policing has its limitations in modern democratic context. Police forces are invariably seen as society’s solution to the problem of crime, whereas in reality, they only deliver authoritative interventions in crisis situations and symbolic justice after behavioural norms have been violated.
As Brodeur (1998) argues, instead of repressing crime and disorder, a realistic police mandate is producing a minimum level of security for “enjoyment of a reasonable quality of life.” When consent and approval of citizenry forms the basis of police legitimacy in liberal democracies (Sherman, 2001; Sung, 2002), softer dimensions like trust & security will be the benchmark. This framework puts into perspective the Indian Police Act (1861) which clearly correlates only to the hard dimensions of crime prevention and order maintenance. Effectiveness is a multi-dimensional concept and in most developed nations, it’s measured through setting organisational goals & identifying key performance indicators (KPIs), validated by independent third party evaluations. This requires hard data and empirical research which is sadly lacking in India. Perceptions about police are largely based on news reports, anecdotal experiences and random surveys. For a comprehensive understanding, both “internal participants” and “external constituents” perspectives are vital. As police stations are the hub of the police delivery system and public perceptions are largely influenced by the quality of service received, a study of cutting edge level police officers of Delhi was undertaken to ascertain key goals, indicators & constraints in policing (Chhabra, 2013).
My study found Public Order, Crime Prevention, Safety & Security, Public Service, Competency & Professionalism as key organisational goals. KPIs identified were Public Trust, Crime Control, User Satisfaction and Resource Efficiency. The constraints can be classified into Internal (Organisational) and External. The biggest internal constraint is obviously manpower shortage. Our police to population ratio (145 per 1,00,000) is way below UN norms. Such shortage has multiple consequences like stress and work overload (12-14 hours), resulting in lack of motivation, frustration & irritability, poor mental and physical health. Delhi SHOs reported not being able to go home for 6 nights in a week. Numbers, however, don’t tell the whole story. Present selection practices don’t factor in psychological & attitudinal traits necessary for responsive policing. Poor housing, low salary and social status (entry level policeman in Los Angeles earns same money & respect as doctors) also add up. Police also doesn’t work in a vacuum. External interference, not only by politicians but also by other powerful groups like media, local elites and even senior officers & judiciary is a blasé fact of life. Corruption is rampant in society as also in police although as protector of law it needs to be held accountable to higher standards.
Roadmap has three broad contours: Capacity Building, Efficient Resource Management and External Environment Management. The first refers to not only substantial increase in police based on scientific principles and humane workloads (Above 80% are overworked - BPRD) but also to recruiting & training right people. World over, psychological profiling and personality testing is integral to selection procedures as wrong personality-job fit leads to serious problems and higher costs in the long run. Technology must be used as a force multiplier to reduce costs & manpower and improve performance. Focus must also shift from witness/confession based policing to evidence based policing which provides clinching proof for convictions (DNA, Digital footprints, Forensics etc.) Secondly, scientific management of human & material resources is lacking as police is perpetually in a crisis management mode. Effectiveness is often at the cost of efficiency. Structural changes are required to reduce constabulary (85%) and increase officer intake, especially in civil police.
But perhaps the biggest challenge is to protect police from unwarranted interference and ensure functional autonomy. Police reforms have been discussed ad nauseam but are stillborn. It cannot become an institution of excellence in a dysfunctional society. Police has always had a love-hate relationship with media. The rules of engagement are yet to evolve for a mutually beneficial relationship. Finally, police needs to be judged on its performance in core areas and not on municipal issues.
All this is easier said than done and therein lies the rub. It requires long-term vision, planning, commitment and perseverance, qualities perhaps unfashionable in this age of “instant fix”. Packaging often trumps substance. As a result, we have frantic activity giving the illusion of action.
Manoj Chhabra is Additional Director General, Odisha and Doctoral Research Scholar, IIT Delhi
Email: mkchhabra10@gmail.com