Let’s start asking a key question: Who should political leaders value more between police departments (including investigative agencies) or Indian armed forces? Frankly, this should not be a relevant issue at all, nor should it be a choice issue, as both “uniforms” should deal with different areas – maintaining internal laws and orders with caring for external security. However, because the two fields often overlap in practice, the reality is more complex and therefore stands out in competition. The preference of the larger citizens is direct, as Indian soldiers at the border defend the sovereignty, integrity and dignity of the country, which far exceeds respect for street police, which is a view of sacrifice and honesty. It is safe to say that the “unification” of the armed forces is respected, while the “unification” of the police is feared and often distrustful.
However, through the utility of police personnel, the “value” to political leadership is far greater than that of the soldiers of the armed forces. Therefore, the “value” of policing is more politically, electorally and from a governance/control point of view, while another field of welding is called only to posture patriotism, politically “muscles” and to serve the country.
In a constitutional sense, one group of “uniforms” is associated with the use of politicians for governance and (MIS), while the other group must be required to be non-political.
Distance (perhaps not interested), the armed forces in the legacy of the former colonial forces, the armed forces have long begun, India’s first prime minister said: “We do not need a defense plan. Our policy is Ahmisa (non-violent).
We foresee no military threat. Abolish the army! The police are enough to meet our security needs. Exceptions) presided over the effective reduction of the armed forces.
Despite the kind of evil and revenge politics that has become the norm, the utility of police (especially investigative agencies) may never be the core of political survival. The fact that police agencies (including state police forces, intelligence agencies, and even central armed police) fail has led to the growing number of failures in the armed forces being asked to control internal problems in natural disasters to police. The perceived testator has been boiling dangerously. Only a “silent” institutional culture of restraint and self-enforcement prevents the armed forces from moving beyond dissatisfied dialogue with bureaucracy, political leaders and police.
The army is in chaos, the barracks and the constitution are full of strange stories, such as the abandoned son of Punjab Chief Minister Pratap Singh Kairon, who “resolved” in a military manner. But all of this is a distant past, with more and more new stories centering around the “roughness” of military personnel facing larger police entourages. Just last year, a sexual assault involving a woman and her officer fiancé caused widespread anger, but time, trends and plenty of distractions managed to cover up the issue. Recently, shock attacks on an army officer in Patiala, Punjab have caused shock waves among distraught veterans, presumably in the service fraternity. Like the case of Odisha, the obvious signs of barbaric masters, procedural and intentional confusion, threats and compromise pressures prevail. Will the case still encounter previous fates, or will the fate that allows the center to take the opposition-ruled Punjab as a state of “illegal” that leads to fate in a fair trial? Only time will prove it. But ironically, the fact that the matter may gain politics (BJP vs. AAP) may only help people from non-political forces, armed forces, against troops that are closely aligned and work directly under the political class, albeit a competitive party.
This does not mean that all policemen are accomplices every time, nor are those who belong to the armed forces never wrong. There are enough examples on the board and among the brave police officers – but unfortunately, there is a regret for the distrust generated by the police force. Most citizens can recall their own brushes and communicate with police authorities when they are in traffic taxes or “solving” important things. Criminal investigations, political witch hunting, and even seeking “help” from police in any personal emergency can cause similar frustration. Several cases of suspicious behavior and arrogance have been well documented, but this is an institutional problem that can only be solved by “reform”, which actually means that the political class is willing to give up “control”. This kind of political benevolence is the main reason for decay and the perception that it cannot be fulfilled. All politicians, regardless of their persuasion, are complicits and they must bear basic responsibilities.
The writer is a retired lieutenant and former lieutenant governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry
