Author: Joginder Singh
Publication: India Policy Foundation
Date: August 10, 2011
URL: http://indiapolicyfoundation.org/will-nac-listen-one-of-the-most-outstanding-police-officers-joginder-singhformer-director-cbi-questions-the-rationale-of-the-communal-targeted-violence-bill/
One of the most outstanding police officers
Joginder Singh (former Director CBI) questions the rationale of the Communal
&Targeted Violence Bill
A Communal Violence Bill has been proposed
by an advisory council of the head of the current ruling party in India. The
Bill has been prepared by arm chair theoreticians, who are either totally
ignorant of the ground realities or have deliberately glossed over the problem
with a view to score brownie points, when elections in some States are around
the corner.
The Government prescription to pass laws
on every subject, even when laws already exists, appears to be aimed at vote
bank. It is a game,, which all citizens, irrespective of their caste or creed
or religion can see through. The biggest communal riots took place in 1947,
when India was divided into Pakistan and India. Pakistan is the direct result
of communalism. Almost all other communities from that country have been thrown
out from that portion of India. With nobody to target anybody, now Muslims
in Pakistan are killing each other, on the ground that who is more fundamentalist.
It has happened in J&K, where 3.70 Lakhs Hindus and Sikhs were forced
to migrate from the valley. In the name of communal harmony, the Government
of India and so called National Advisory Body has glossed over the issue.
On the contrary, it initially suggested that the majority community is always
at fault. One really cannot blame any Committee, because normally, they are
packed with the cronies of the party in power and are more than willing to
give any kind of recommendation. The draft bill will create more problems
than it would solve, because majority in one State can be a minority elsewhere
One way, apart from oral words, the communal
riots also spread through printed words. The Criminal and Elections Laws (Amendment)
Act, 1969 contains provisions for controlling and checking of prejudicial
publications. It was observed by the National Police Commission that "Inspite
of the availability of Legal power under this Act for controlling objectionable
publications in the Press, very little action under the law is taken by the
State Governments. While no Government in a democratic system should attempt
to compromise the freedom of the Press, the Government cannot abrogate its
functions, if mischievous reporting in the Press is likely to lead to a breach
of the public peace"..
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act
No 31) of 1972 introduced a new section 153-B in the Indian Penal Code, which
makes imputations, assertions, etc. prejudicial to national integration, an
offence, punishable with imprisonment which may extend upto three years or
with fine or with both. Thus legal provisions already exist for the control
of the prejudicial publications and other activities prejudicial to national
integration and public order.
A number of commissions of Inquiries, into
to Communal Riots, which have mostly occurred in UP and Maharashtra, with
a few here and there in other States, have gone into the genesis of some of
the riots in recent years and they have stressed again and again the need
for effective and prompt control and contradiction of rumours which add fuel
to the riots.
The problem of Communal riots cannot isolated
from the general law enforcement in a State. A strict and impartial law enforcement
on a day to day basis can reduce the chances of a prolonged communal riot.",
according to the National Police Commission. The National Integration Council
suggested that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police should
be made personally responsible for prompt action to prevent and stop communal
disturbances. It added that for dealing with communal riots the State Governments
and local administration should act impartially and use every weapon in their
legal armoury to fight obnoxious propaganda which may be prejudicial to the
maintenance of communal harmony.
It is very important for the Police to have
an up-to-date list of anti-social elements in the communally sensitive areas
along with a list of the policemen who can identify them. Great care has to
be taken in the preparation of the list to ensure that law abiding citizens
are not included in such lists due to local disputes and controversies.
Jagan Mohan Reddy Commission suggested that
"Moral and Cultural education should be inculcated in the youth, so as
to imbibe in them a sense of toleration and to broaden their outlook. The
concept of a secular state is compatible with the moral aspect of religion….
The Political leaders should inculcate the idea of oneness in all sections
of the people of India. The problem of communal disturbances must be solved
by political and social leaders, as it is they who can initiate action and
create conditions and prescribe norms and give proper orientation to inculcate
that feeling and achieve harmony and make for a better society."
Madon Commission felt that "The most
effective way of bringing down a disturbance which has taken a serious turn
or is about to take serious turn is to use firearms. Police firing should
never take place in the air and should not be long delayed. The Police should
not be afraid of judicial inquiries. The Police open fire on the most determined
part of the mob keeping their arms slow so as to avoid taking life as far
as possible… In every case of police firing the Government need not accept
the demand of judicial or public inquiry."
Thus it may be seen that the Police dealing
with communal situations can at best undertake fire fighting operation, the
long term measures lying with the social and political leaders in the country.
However, the Police will have to ensure that All Laws must be enforced equally
and equitable for all people. There cannot be and should not be select few
who receive preferential treatment or selected groups singled out for particularly
harsh or unjust treatment.
It is pertinent to quote the National Police
Commission (*1977-81) on the subject which observed, "In some of the
cases studies undertaken by the National Police Commission, it came out in
some detail that in many cases of troubled cities, the Police and the Magistracy,
just withdrew when antisocial groups indulged in violent crimes. The deployment
of Magistrates on such occasions appears to have been reduced to almost a
farce…
There is a tendency amongst the officers to
avoid taking responsibility in dealing with the situation. They either avoid
going to the trouble shot or when they happen to be present there, they try
not to order the use of force when the situation so demands, or better still
slip away from the scene leaving the force leaderless.
We have reasons to believe that this reaction
of the officers was more a calculated decision on their part, rather than
a reflex action out of cowardice. They consider it prudent to avoid getting
involved in ordering the use of force. It is unfortunate that after such riots,
it is only those officers, who had taken some action in dealing with the situation,
are accused of all sorts of allegations and they have to face harassment and
humiliation in the inquiries that follow.
The real villain who allows the situation
to deteriorate by not taking firm action in the initial stages to control
the situation manages to go scot free." To deal with the situations as
they arise, it is essential that officers act on their own in their best judgement,
and "not seek instructions from higher quarters where none are necessary."
About the prevailing position in India, the
National Police Commission quoted Professor David H. Hayley as under and also
said that their assessment is the same: "In India today, a dual system
of criminal justice has grown up, the one of the law and other of politics.
With respect atleast to the police, decisions made by the Police officials,
about the application of law, are frequently subject to partisan review or
direction by the elected representatives. The autonomy of the Police officials,
in specific and routine application, of law has been severally curtailed.
This is not only true, to law and order situations. People accused of crimes,
have got into the habit, of appealing to political figures, for remission
from the sanctions of law. People officials, throughout India, have grown
accustomed, to calculating the likely political effect, of any enforcement
action, they contemplate. Fearing for their careers and especially their postings,
they have become anxious and cynical… But everywhere, officers are expected
to be held, personally accountable by the politicians, even more than by superior
officers, for enforcement action taken in the course of duty…Altogether,
then the rule of law in modern India, the frame upon which justice hangs has
been undermined by the rules of politics. Supervision in the name of democracy
has eroded the foundations upon which the impartiality depends in a criminal
justice system."
There is no dearth of laws. The trouble for
handling any kind of violence, whether communal or law and arises, because
of back seat driving by the politicians, in the seat of power, who calculate
the cost benefit ration of any action by the Government or any of its wings.
It is for this reason, that no State Government has implemented the Supreme
Court Judgement , or 22nd September , for functional independence to the police
with a fixed tenure for its functionaries. In fact some states have gone overboard
to control the police like the Government of Maharashtra
Orders loaded to favour politicians. It asked
policemen in Maharashtra have been asked not to maintain records of phone
calls from politicians.
The circular was issued on November 18, 2010
by the state's Home Ministry and orders policemen not to make any entries
in police station diaries if politicians call regarding police cases.
The orders were issued in the midst of a controversy
over a senior Maharashtra politician and Union Cabinet Minister using his
office to influence a police case to protect another politician.
In December 2010, the Supreme Court fined
the Maharashtra government Rs. 10 lakh and reprimanded Vilasrao Deshmukh for
allowing his office to be misused in a phone call made in 2006. Deshmukh was
then the Chief Minister. His Personal Assistant had called a police station
in Khamgaon and asked an officer not to register a case against the local
Congress MLA, Dilipkumar Sananda. Farmers in the area had alleged that the
MLA and his family were involved in money-lending.
The Bombay High Court had ordered the state
government to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 in March, 2009. The government had
appealed against that and the Court struck down the orders. To hold Deputy
Commissioners and District Police Chief Responsible for dealing with the communal
riots, with instructions coming every minute, what to do and what not to do,
is only finding the scapegoats. All communal situations can be controlled,
if only those using remote control, would stop their back seat driving. It
is worth while two instances, as to how I dealt with the sensitive communal
situation in the old Hyderabad Nizam erstwhile district Bidar now in Karnataka.
I and the District Magistrate could do, because we had no interest in any
political part y and nobody ever telephoned, as to what to do.
-------------------------------------
II
How I doused the Flames of Communal Violence?
Elections were to be held in the country in
1967. More than 450 polling booths were set up in Bidar District. The instructions,
for the election Commission were, that there should be at least one constable
per polling booth. With a total force of about 500 including the sick and
trainees, it was a Herculean task, to man the polling booths. With the total
deployment done, I was left with a reserve force of seven men, which included
my own guard and driver. For the first time, Jan Sangh, the predecessor party
of the BJP had decided to contest elections from Bidar to the State Assembly.
The Congress candidate was a sitting MLA and also a Deputy Minister, in the
State Government, Maqsood Ali Khan and his Jan Sangh rival was Chanderkant
Shindol.
On the election day, a dispute arose between
the supporters of the two rival candidates. The representative of the Jan
Sangh claimed that bogus voters were coming, to cast vote for the Congress
candidate. The supporters of Congress candidate alleged that Jan Sangh supporters,
had removed the Burkas, to verify the genuineness of the Muslim lady voters,
so that no man by putting on a Burka does the proxy voting. First it started
with the stone throwing. Arson followed when a few shops and houses were set
on fire. I saw the mobs of the two communities, surging towards each other
menacingly. I myself along with my driver, and guard, started lobbing tear
gas shells, into the unruly crowd. There was no sign of the Violence and arson
abating. I went to the nearest telephone and sent the following message to
the IG "rioting, looting and arson in Bidar. Request rush reinforcements".
I was also aware that by the time any force came from Bangalore, which was
480 kilometres away, the whole town would have been burnt. I also telephoned
the Station Commander of the Indian Air Force, to rush to our help, with all
the force he had, otherwise he would not see anything of Bidar town as I was
battling the mob with just a seven men reserve force.
Fortunately, the Air Force came in a big
way with their armaments, and vehicles and they started patrolling the city.
At our request, they also sent up their trainer aircraft's to sensitive areas.
This enabled' us, to assess with pinpoint accuracy, the trouble spots and
the trouble makers. We were able to bring the situation, under control without
any loss of life or even firing. Notwithstanding the trouble, the city had
a polling of 65 per cent. In the meantime a message came that the IG wanted
me to speak to him immediately. The option for me was to leave the trouble
spot for making a phone call or ignore it. I did not ignore it but told the
wireless operator to send a message back that a hostile crowd had surrounded
me and as soon as I could get out, I would speak to him. There were no ways
of easy communication. There was no such thing as straight trunk dialling
(STD). You had to book a call and wait near the telephone for at least one
or two hours. I did it after four hours, after bringing the situation under
control. He was quite happy with what I had done in that critical situation.
The Deputy Commissioner, late, N.K. Prabhakar Rao, IAS of 1956 batch, was
a valuable colleague. He was a type, who would fight with you, any battle
shoulder to shoulder. His presence in another part of the town, brought a
similar situation under control. Sometimes, the Policemen complain that when
the trouble arises, the Executive Magistrates make themselves scarce. But
here the Deputy Commissioner, was in the forefront, of the battle with me.
Under the law it is only the District Magistrate who can summon the armed
forces or paramilitary to the aid of the civil authorities. Here I had summoned
the Air Force and they had responded in the national interests. The Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate signed the requisition, as if he had
summoned them, to keep the record straight. He did not create any fuss.
The incident had generated a lot of bitterness
and distrust between the two communities. I convened a meeting of the two
candidates and the prominent citizens in my office, along with the District
Magistrate. Instead of a peaceful discussion the members of the two communities
started blaming each other for communal riots. I kept on listening for sometime.
I intervened to say that any more disturbances and recriminations, would compel
me to arrest all those spoiling the atmosphere, including the candidates,
contesting elections, without any fear or favour. I urged them, to ensure
peace, in their respective areas, failing which I will have to take some very
unpleasant and tough measures. Nobody had heard such a plain talk. Since the
District Magistrate was in my office sitting with me, everybody presumed that
it was a joint decision. This had a salutary effect. I suggested that the
shops must open next day and the business, should go on, as usual. For any
serious rioting or incident, it is essential that the senior officers including
DIGs and if possible the IGs should visit the place. Bidar was more than 300
kms. from the range of Headquarters. The only way to travel to Bidar was by
road. When the DIG got the message of trouble, he rang me up on the first
day. Since I was busy with quelling the riot, I could not speak to him. Next
day when my meeting with the citizens, was going on a call came from the DIG.
He started berating me that I had not dealt with the situation tactfully.
The real cause was the uncomfortable road journey on pock marked and potholed
road, for two days, to reach Bidar. When I found that without realising the
gravity of the situation, he was going on and on with his lecture, I just
said: "I cannot hear you. He said that he could hear me clearly. I kept
on telling him that I could not hear him and would call him up later on."
I did not want to appear to be rude to the DIG in the public meeting. I put
down the phone and told my personal staff that if any call comes from the
DIG when I am in a public meeting, they could tell him that I had gone for
the city rounds and would call him later on. The DIG was bitter, on my not
receiving the call, when he came to Bidar two days later on. I explained to
him that I was busy in public meeting when he was pulling me up. I had no
other option, but to cut the call, as he was in no mood to listen my version.
After going around and seeing how I had tackled the critical situation, he
paid me rich compliments with a copy of the letter to the I.G.
Mass Rape at Bhimalkheda
During one of the meetings with the press,
it was brought to my notice that a mass rape had been committed at a village
called Bhimalkheda in Mannaelkheli police station. The Police had refused
to register a case. Perhaps, it was on the ground that the rape victims were
from the family of a big bully and a known rapist. Perhaps there was an element
of fear coupled with glee, that a sort of poetic justice, had been meted out,
to the family of one, who himself had ,been guilty, of similar offences on
the village womenfolk of the other community. The offence, had been committed
more than two weeks ago, on a dozen women belonging to the minority community.
The victims included the old and the young, married and unmarried. When I
made enquiries, I found that no case had been registered. At least the district
records did not show the occurrence of any such offence. I sent an officer
from the district headquarters, for an inquiry. I followed it up. with my
personal visit to the village. Preliminary enquiries showed, that such an
offence, had taken place. Almost all the young people, of the village belonging
to the majority community had taken part in the rape. It was done in a spirit
of reprisal. A few days before this well-planned crime, the entire youth of
the majority community, had taken an oath, on a flame to teach a lesson, to
the rowdy.
The preliminary enquiries, also revealed,
that no complaint, had been made to the police station. I was personally not
inclined to believe the same. But since the aggrieved women themselves, said
that they had not complained, I had no option bat LO accept their version.
A case of rape and criminal trespass was registered. All of those, who had
perpetrated, the crime, were nabbed. The women were sent for vaginal medical
examination, which is essential to prove the charge of rape. As most of the
victim women were married, the medical opinion was not helpful. The Doctor
reported that no opinion could be given as they were used, to frequent sexual
intercourse. In the case of two young married girls, the medical evidence
showed ruptured hymen.
The only evidence, against the accused numbering
25 was the statement, of the victims. Despite weak evidence, the case did
succeed in the Sessions Court. The case was based on the circumstantial evidence.
The accused were convicted and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
However, they were acquitted by the High Court in an appeal. But as they had
spent a lot of time in jail, first in police custody, then in judicial custody
and later on as prisoners, this had a good effect on the law and order climate
in the district. The local press blew up the case, as my personal success,
for having taken up the challenge and proved that the District Police Chief
was totally impartial in his dealing with all the communities
