In a seminal paper, ‘Complexities of 21st Century Policing’, published last year, Professor David Bayley of the State University of New York, Albany was categorical that the traditional notion of police professionalism was dead, and that the plea for ‘policing with consent’ must be rethought.
In the paper, Prof. Bayley, whose association with the Indian police goes back 50 years, makes a plea for new institutions within the police so as to draw benefit from public inputs, accompanied by the engendering of a new professionalism based on rigorous evaluation of existing strategic and managerial policies. Reliance should be more on institutional wisdom and memory rather than on individual experiences. In sum, he argues for taking the police out of the rut it had got into the world over, through a break from past practices which were becoming dangerously archaic in a divided and strife-ridden world.
What Prof. Bayley says has immediate relevance for the Indian police, especially after what we saw in Bengaluru on New Year’s Eve, when an already poor image of the Indian police deteriorated further because of an apathetic urban police force standing by even as some women were being molested. It was not just the Bengaluru police that failed that night; the criticism levelled against it applies to the police at large, even while giving allowance to varying standards of policing in our megacities.
In specific terms, what is required now is to restructure existing police arrangements for special occasions such as New Year celebrations. The average law-abiding, tax-paying citizen cannot any longer be expected to be passive or to condone sloppiness in maintaining law and order. He is tired of alibis for non-performance, especially in dealing with uncivilised brutes going on a rampage without any provocation whatsoever. This is especially so at a time when even the most insensitive and uninhibited politician in the country will refrain from exploiting a New Year celebration to promote his cause. The Bengaluru police stand alone in this hour of ignominy.
Outnumbered on the street
Even assuming that media reports have exaggerated what happened, there is video evidence of at least another incident that happened in Kammanahalli, where a woman was groped and pushed onto the road by motorcycle-borne miscreants. There is still no evidence of what took place on M.G. Road and its vicinity in the upmarket heart of the city. There is nothing to suggest that the police were surprised at the happenings or were unprepared. There was indeed substantial deployment in traditional hotspots, taking into account past experience. What is now learnt is that the police were outnumbered in a few places, where the congregation of revellers was more than usual. The local police stations could have possibly made an assessment late in the afternoon so that extra policemen could have been directed to localities where the crowds were pouring in. There was therefore an element of failure on the part of city police intelligence.
The police were reluctant to use force against the antisocial elements. Their response is a moot point; policemen at the spot are shy of employing strong methods without the approval and direction of senior officers going all the way up to the numero uno — in this case the Commissioner. This unfortunate situation has developed over the years because of many complaints of police excesses and the judicial enquiries ordered as a sequel. This is where politics creeps in. Many belonging to the Opposition lose no time accusing the police of overreaction, only to embarrass the ruling party even where there is consensus that the situation on the ground did warrant police opening fire or using batons. Unless this situation changes, one will continue to hear complaints of police failures.
Leadership deficit
There is the other factor of inadequacies of police leadership that have become glaring over the years. They look up to the Chief Minister or Home Minister for approval of even minor and routine field decisions. Even where there is an enlightened Chief Minister who stays away from field decisions, a weak DGP or Police Commissioner takes no chances. Can there be anything more damaging to the swift handling of explosive threats to peace? Is not granting more autonomy to the police a futile exercise if there are such hesitant DGPs and Commissioners?
In the ultimate analysis, it is only strong public opinion that can bring a sea change to the styles of policing. In the Bengaluru incidents, the citizenry has a significant role to play by bringing enough pressure on the government to identify the accused and bring them to book. If they do not rise to the occasion, not much will happen.
This brings me to the fundamental question of enhancing police sensitivity to the task of protecting our women. There was a lot of noise after the horrific Delhi gang-rape case of 2012. There was also a laudable effort to make the law on sexual assaults on women more stringent. Whether this has helped to improve the quality of police protection to women is debatable. New methods of training will certainly help, but only moderately. Imaginative day-to-day interaction on the subject between the higher echelons and policemen at the grass-roots level will alone help. How often do Commissioners of Police and the numerous deputies visit police stations and talk to the constabulary? That is a chasm that will remain un-bridged as long as senior IPS officers believe that it is enough to pander to the ego of a Chief Minister for going up the ladder.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)