Outbreak of communal riots in the national capital which resulted in the killing of more than 42 innocent citizens and grievous injuries to over two hundred people along with the loss of private and public property worth millions of rupees, brings the role of the law and order machinery, particularly the police under a question mark.
While it is widely accepted that political parties will play communal cards to advance their political objectives and to earn electoral dividends, people at large expect and hope that the state machinery particularly the police would protect their lives.
Reaction of the country’s polity, as reflected in political parties’ statements, is on the expected lines. Today’s ruling party is following the same line and speaking almost the same language as was being done by the opposition party or parties at the time of Delhi Sikh riots in 1984 and now a role reversal is clearly on public display. Nothing seems to have changed since. Ruling party and the opposition parties would continue to trade charges and counter-charges blaming each other.
Reaction of the country’s polity, as reflected in political parties’ statements, is on the expected lines.
A close look at the pattern of violence perpetrated by criminal elements enjoying political patronage and support establishes beyond doubt that the violence had spread because of the failure of the Delhi police in delegating its fundamental and primary duty. It failed to maintain law and order in northeast Delhi where communal tensions were building up for some time. Both Hindus and Muslims, who have been the victim of the communal violence, agree that the Delhi police was missing where is was needed.
Credibility of the Delhi police, that had been sinking for quite some time, has hit a new low. There are reports that at least six alerts were sent to Delhi police, warning about possible communal violence on Sunday, 23 February, when BJP leader Kapil Mishra had called for a gathering at Maujpur — one of the most grave riot hit areas of northeast Delhi — against the anti-CAA protesters who had blocked a road in the area causing traffic jams.
Despite Delhi police having information about tension build up, why did it not swing into action taking preemptive steps to avert the threat is a question that is begging an answer. Police could have taken hate mongers into preventive custody is yet another policy lapse that the Delhi police has to answer. Yet another is question about the delay in filing of FIRs against hate speech culprits that even the Delhi High Court and its justice S. Murlidhar asked before he was served transfer orders.
Police could have taken hate mongers into preventive custody is yet another policy lapse that the Delhi police has to answer.
Even former Delhi police commissioners like Ajay Raj Sharma and T.N. Kakkar have pointed out to the lapse of duty by Commissioner Amulya Patnaik, who retired on 29 February. Patnaik failed to do his duty by not arresting political representatives for their hate speeches. While the Delhi police and the central government’s legal counsel contended in the High Court that time for lodging of FIRs was not “conducive”, it is impossible to understand the logic behind such an argument, by a body to whom the Constitution has vested the authority to decide the timing of lodging of an FIR against a criminal. It is difficult to find out a law which defines the “conducive” timing for filing of an FIR? Another known and established practice of undertaking of flag marches to bring the situation under control and display the might of the state was not put to use by the police. Again, what prevented the police to not exercise this right of theirs? An interesting aspect of the whole issue is the fact that while the role of police is crucial in controlling violence and communal rioting, there is a defined role of the civil administration too. In Delhi’s case, even though the Delhi police is controlled by the Union Home Ministry, it does not mean that the state government has no tool to control riots. The civil administration that comes under the Delhi government, has district magistrates and civil administrators who are empowered to call Army in riot affected areas. If the police proved to be inept and was not able to deal with the situation, question is why did the district magistrate of the riot hit area did not write to the government seeking deployment of Army? Why did Delhi government of Aam Admi Party (AAP) led by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal remained passive and did not exercise this option?
Delhi police, understandably, would have enough excuses and explanations for the outbreak of unprecedented violence that the national capital had not witnessed for the last three decades. It would possibly say it was an intelligence failure. But, who would believe it or take this on its face value? Another explanation that is likely to be extended is going to be that Delhi police was busy in supervising security arrangements for the visit of US President Donald Trump to the country and the union capital. Even this does not stand any ground because if it was so then the Delhi Police Commissioner should have communicated to the Union Home Ministry. Does a communication to this effect was made?
While the role of police is crucial in controlling violence and communal rioting, there is a defined role of the civil administration too. In Delhi’s case, even though the Delhi police is controlled by the Union Home Ministry, it does not mean that the state government has no tool to control riots.
While answers to similar and other related questions are required to fix the blame without bias and dispassionately with the objective of improving the policing system to prevent any reoccurrence of any such tragedy, it is clear that the police in the country in general and in the national capital in particular does not have autonomy and is prone to political pressures and interference.
It is time for much-delayed police reforms that have even been recommended by the Supreme Court in 2006. But this is not on agenda of any political party. It is shunned rather abhorred by all political parties particularly the ruling ones. It is, therefore, necessary that civil society and academia acting unison creates an environment that forces the political leadership to agree to wide-ranging reforms to reestablish popular faith in society in general and among minorities in particular towards the state and its administration.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
