Opinion Police posts & checks

A few days ago,Home Secretary G.K. Pillai spoke at the foundation day ceremony of the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) in Delhi. What made headlines was his statement that police recruitment is mired in corruption. This wasn’t a reference to the Indian Police Service (IPS) or even gazetted officers recruited through the state police services. It was a reference to non-gazetted recruitment through the State Public Service Commissions (SPSCs) and other means. This is a season of large-ticket corruption. Small-ticket corruption can be defined as that which occurs in citizen and enterprise interfaces with government. And here,the police figure prominently. For example,a specific study was done on corruption in police in India by Transparency International (TI) in 2005. According to that,87 per cent of those who interacted with the police believed it to be corrupt and 12 per cent of all households said they had to bribe (in the previous year) the police to obtain a service. Why do policemen demand bribes? Among various reasons,TI said: “Payment of bribes for postings and promotions is a well-known phenomenon in the police department. As a result the policemen who have paid their way through try to recover the amount as soon as possible and corruption becomes a tool for getting better return on ‘investment’.” Naturally,the argument becomes stronger if one has to pay for entry into service. Who was the last kotwal (as the chief of police was called) of Delhi? That’s a standard quiz question and the answer happens to be Gangadhar Nehru,Motilal Nehru’s father. Though nomenclature varied from one part of India to another,there was a system of village policing,before the British integrated it into a modern police force. There is a fascinating monograph,“History of Police Organisation in India and Indian Village Police”,published by the University of Calcutta in 1913. It is based on excerpts from the 1902-03 report of the Indian Police Commission. The first sentence goes,“Of all the branches of the public service in India,the police,by its history and traditions,is the most backward in its character.” If this report is any indication,the British were ambivalent about village police. They liked the idea,because village police were networked with citizens,something we ought to remember today,when we talk about police reforms and community policing. Simultaneously,because of financial constraints,despite integration,the pre-British village police weren’t originally funded by the exchequer. They were linked with revenue functions and funded themselves through levies on citizens. The British continued with this system,though they didn’t like it. “His (kotwal) appointment,however,was considered a lucrative one,as the pay of his establishment was very low,and both he and his subordinates supplemented their salaries by unauthorised exactions from the inhabitants.” Thus,both in pre-British and early British days,there are antecedents of police financing themselves through extortion and bribes. It is ingrained in the police force’s DNA. And this wasn’t rural alone. “At a later period special regulations were made for the police of cities,the cost being levied from the inhabitants by an assessment on each house and shop.” Under the Constitution as well as the Police Act of 1861,police is a state subject. However,as should be obvious,police reforms aren’t only about the IPS or gazetted officers under state police services. That’s around 1 per cent of the total police strength. About 88 per cent is constabulary and another 11 per cent is what is called upper subordinates (inspectors,SIs,ASIs). Pillai had in mind recruitment to these.While there are some state-level variations,constables are generally recruited through boards,and SIs/ ASIs through the SPSCs. These are the equivalents of the village police in early British days. Colonial police commission reports (such as of 1902-03) weren’t that concerned with recruitment to these,since these posts (that is,their equivalents) were hereditary. They were more concerned with what we would today call gazetted appointments. Plenty has been written about police reforms in India,especially after the Prakash Singh case of 1996. Rather oddly,this discourse and Central (model act) and state-level legislation (proposed and actual) have little on appointments to upper subordinates and constabulary. There is stuff on senior-level appointments and transfers/ postings at all levels. There are recommendations on providing incentives and training for upper subordinates and constabulary. The home secretary’s concern is a neglected issue. Whether it is the recruitment of upper subordinates (SPSCs) or constabulary (boards),the principles are similar. Minimum educational and physical qualifications are prescribed; these vary between states,especially for the educational part. For specific categories,deviations are permitted from the minimum. Physical examinations are followed by written tests and interviews. Stated thus,it is no different from any entry-level requirement anywhere. There are ways to reduce corruption in each of the three stages — physical,written,interview. Not long ago,a candidate in Delhi turned whistleblower when a government hospital asked for a bribe to furnish the medical certificate. Since government hospitals are invariably corrupt,the simplest option is to outsource the medical. After all,this is about adherence to a minimum template and no more. A similar logic applies to written tests. These are meant to test know-ledge,not quite writing skills. Unfortunately,patterns followed are decades-old. There hasn’t been a transition to multiple-choice tests,where there is scope for computerisation,apart from computerisation and coding in the allotment of roll numbers. If writing skills have to be tested,that can always be tagged on separately,a pattern followed in many US tests. Multiple-choice format allows removal of discretion and outsourcing. Corruption results from discretion and,both in physicals and written tests,there is scope to reduce this. There is scope to place information in the public domain and allow external scrutiny,and to reduce the powers of SPSCs and recruitment boards. The 2006 Model Police Act didn’t probe this enough,because that was supposed to be done through government rules. All it said was,“The direct recruitments to non-gazetted ranks in the Police Service shall be made through a state-level Police Recruitment Board by a transparent process,adopting well-codified and scientific systems and procedures which shall be notified through appropriate rules framed by the State Government.” We do need a Police Recruitment Board. But through rules,we also need its powers to be curbed. That’s the transparency part and there is scope to reduce corruption even in interviews. After all,corruption has been reduced at entry level in many places. Now that the home secretary has set a cat among the pigeons,can we introduce such transparent rules for Delhi Police recruitment,as a test case?

The writer is a Delhi-based economist,express@expressindia.com