The artificial distinction of cognizable and non-cognizable crimes should be abolished. Barring problems of public disorder, heinous crimes and property offences, ordinary crimes (now called non-cognizable) should be given priority, in the disposal of which resort to the court (that is enforcement of law) will be the last stage and before that, mediation, negotiation, counselling (helping), persuasion, arbitration, referral should be used to resolve conflicts or help a citizen in distress. Since problems of public disorder and heinous crimes are not daily occurrences, this implies that police can give higher priority to non-cognizable cases.

There may be objections raised to this new mandate on several counts. First, police are already burdened by the ever-increasing workload and inadequate manpower and therefore the new mandate will worsen the sad plight of the police department. But this is not a validobjection, for the following reasons: many cognizable crimes could have been avoided had the police given their attention when the complaints were in the non-cognizable stage. Therefore, the new mandate will not increase the workload, but will reduce it.

Paramilitary structure of police organization:

Another proposed new perspective is demilitarization of the police organization. Let us first consider the ill-effects of the paramilitary structure on the police organisation itself and the public at large.

Paramilitary structure is characterized by centralised command; one-way (downward) communication in the form of orders; rigid superior-subordinate relationship, defined by prerogatives of rank, impersonality, obedience; and stress on the repressive nature of the work. Such a structure tends to create a sense of demoralization and powerlessness in the lower ranks. Oneway communication creates a perception of the top command as being arbitrary in its actions. Not having had input into topmanagement decisions results in cynicism among the middle management and rank and file; top command decisions are perceived as unrealistic; a `we-they' feeling is fortified. Rigidity leads to blockages to change. Not having participated in the development of department programmes, lower ranks have no stake in their success, and hence programmes are often sabotaged at the level of execution. There is a tendency to cover oneself by acting only when so ordered, and therefore a tendency to overdepend on senior officer's orders, and chronic fear of risk taking, and so innovation is stifled. Members of the organization are exposed to a conflicting set of expectations; outside the organization a policeman constantly makes on-the-spot decisions, carries deadly weapons and has power over life and death of the citizens; but inside the organization he is treated like a child. This leads to loss of self-esteem of policemen in the organization.

The role relationships and processes within the organization establish amodel for interactions with the public. Military model carries a connotation of war and conflict; police are viewed as an occupying army by the underprivileged sections of the public. The authoritarian structure becomes translated into a similar style of dealing with the public. Along with authoritarianism comes a need for deference; a lack of deference on the part of the citizen becomes a psychological threat and is often viewed as a justification for use of force; even if the force is absent, the approach to the public tends to be procedural, technically oriented and legalistic. There is a ``bicyclist personality'' (bowing one's head above and kicking below) prevailing throughout the police organization.

Enlightened administration:

The existing style of police administration can be described as ``primitive.'' It is based on the crude system of carrots and sticks, perhaps using sticks more than carrots. When this author was on probation, one top officer advised him that the subordinate policemenshould always be ``kicked on their..., otherwise they will not work.'' One DGP of a State divulged that in one big city where ``gang wars'' were common, police used to take ``supari'' for lakhs of rupees from one gang, give the duty revolver to its member to be used to annihilate a member of the rival gang, and then set up a scene of police encounter and apply for the gallantry medal. What a mockery of the reward and punishment system which is meant to ensure accountable behaviour from the police!

By enlightened administration, we mean: (1) Identify tasks required to be done in order to fulfil the chosen mandate (2) Identify the knowledge, skills and abilities required for performing the tasks (3) Recruit those persons who will be trainable in this knowledge, skills and abilities or personal characteristics. Use modelling and role-playing techniques of imparting these knowledge, skills and abilities (4) Create an atmosphere in the organization which encourages application of the newly-learnt knowledge,skills and abilities, and ensure that deviations are punished (5) Train the supervisory officers in techniques of fair and unbiased performance appraisal (6) Identify persons requiring in-service training and spheres in which they should be trained. Identify persons through such performance appraisal who are fit for promotion (7) Get feedback from policemen and public (participative management) and modify organizational policies, recruitment standards, training methods and reward and punishment criteria in accordance with such feedbadk (8) Monitor defaults committed by police personnel, since they are indicators of ills in the organization; treat common defaults as organizational inadequacy and rectify the corresponding organizational factor which encourages such defaults (9) Counsel individual defaulters for improving or developing them, before giving serious punishments.

Recruitment:

At present, certain minimum standards of physical requirements (height, chest, weight, etc) are used as arecruitment condition. The belief is that a tall and well-built policeman will be able to make his presence felt, by creating fear in the minds of citizens. But for the new mandate we have chosen, what the policeman requires is not the ability to create fear, but the ability to persuade by using his social skills, which create a sense of trust, faith, or confidence in the minds of people. Of course, fear is also used sometimes as a tool for persuasion. But the kind of fear or coercive force we have envisaged in resolving interpersonal and intergroup conflicts does not require a tall and well-built man.

There are a large number of studies which have found that the police's working personality is a product of formal and informal demands of police work. As per this socialization model, the individual adopts attitudes and values deemed useful or necessary for adequate performance in his chosen profession.

However, the fact that not all are equally socialized shows that somewhere in the process ofsocialization, the individual's personality also plays a role.