The coronavirus outbreak is one of the most terrifying events to have happened in the world since World War 2. The pandemic has engulfed over 1,71,000 lives across the world and respite still seems distant. While doctors, nurses and the entire medical fraternity are facing the unprecedented pressure of dealing with infected patients, the law enforcement machinery is working 24x7 to enforce a lockdown—the first of its kind. Unlike previous epidemics when there was no social media and limited technology, today, every bit of information spreads like wildfire.
A few videos showing lathi-wielding policemen went viral in the first week of the lockdown. Those drew so much public criticism that the Kerala High Court, taking suo motu cognisance, directed the DGP of Kerala to issue instructions to police officers to ensure they did not use force on people violating the lockdown till it became absolutely necessary. Though the court also appreciated the excellent work done by the police, it reminded the state that its actions were under the “watchful eyes” of the judiciary.
The purpose of invoking the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, is to prevent the spread of epidemics. The punitive provisions are only incidental to make the enforcement effective. The objective of orders issued under the CrPC and the Disaster Management Act, 2005, is also similar. The Interpol has issued guidelines for law enforcement agencies on 26 March 2020, highlighting the emerging trend of crimes such as fake and counterfeit medical products, online frauds, telephone frauds, phishing and cyber crime. Despite the fact that the police have been doing a challenging job, ranging from enforcing the lockdown to ensuring uninterrupted supply of essential services to the poor and needy, the general impression of the public is that the police remain brutal and insensitive.
The police, the most vulnerable community after the medical fraternity in the current scenario, are working under adverse conditions. The police force is generally sensitised to act as a first responder during any disaster. However, largely they learn in situ from situations as they emerge. In training centres, they are taught to manage crowds and deal with unlawful assemblies using minimum force. The legal principle of using ‘minimum force’ is so dynamic that only the commander on the field can verily define its limits. Enforcing the lockdown may not require the use of force generally; situations may warrant otherwise at times. However, beating people on streets by the police can never be justified reasonably.
This reminds me of the type of police force envisaged by Mahatma Gandhi. He always wanted the (non-violent) peace brigade of trained volunteers to deal with internal disturbances, particularly communal riots. In fact, Gandhi was very disturbed when the Congress ministers of the provincial government (of United Province) used the police force and army to control the Allahabad communal riots in 1938. He reprimanded the Congress saying it was not yet fit to substitute the British authority as it depended on the police and was not committed to the creed of unadulterated non-violence.
Gandhi, while touring the Frontier province along with Ghaffar Khan in November 1938, compared a satyagrahi with an ordinary soldier. He said, “A soldier in arms is trained to kill. Even his dreams are about killing… A satyagrahi, on the other hand, would always long for an opportunity for silent service... If he dreams, it will not be about killing but about laying down his life to serve others.”
Strange enough, every cop is trained to disperse unlawful assemblies using force and not otherwise. Counselling and negotiation are necessary preludes, but these are undertaken only to avoid the use of force if possible and if the situation permits. During the lockdown, people are not allowed to mingle in groups and forced to maintain a safe distance. Here, though the police are expected to act like a peace brigade, the response always remains wanting. They deliver according to what was handed down to them during training.
The only justification of using necessary force against aggressors is self-defence by the police. It is everyone’s legal right. Reacting to widespread goondaism in Noakhali (in February 1940), Gandhi said, “Self-defence and honour cannot be protected by others. They are for each individual himself or herself to guard.” Gandhi believed in non-violent self-defence and wanted everyone to be their own policeman.
Surprisingly, there have been a few ugly scenes of aggression by the infected Covid-19 patients and suspects. The medical staff took the least aggressive route of retaliation by reporting the matter to the police authorities. The medical fraternity exercised patience true to their creed. Similarly, though there have been a few cases of stone-pelting on the police, and the cops have also maintained restraint to a large extent. They might not have donned the role of a peace brigade as envisaged by Gandhi, but they have not let down society either given the unparalleled situation.
R K Vij
Senior IPS officer in Chhattisgarh.
Views expressed are his own
(Email: vijrk@hotmail.com)
