(Secular Perspective
December 16-31)
Representation of muslims in police force and communal riots
by Asghar Ali Engineer
Sachar Committee Report has given figures of Muslim representation in police force in various states. Praveen Swami, a noted columnist and commentators of current events on Kashmir in particular, and Muslims in general, has written an article in Frontline (December 16, 06) “Bias and the Police” which is quite interesting to read. He examines these figures of Muslim presence in various states and maintains that it is not necessary that greater representation of Muslims in police force can ensure absence of communal violence.
Thus Parveen Swami says, “Representative policing is a seductive slogan, offering a one pill solution to an infinitely complex and apparently incurable malaise (emphasis in original). At best, however, it is a placebo -- not a prescription for building professional police force,”
It is not that one disagrees with Mr. Swami but one has to put things in perspective by examining various factors, which lead to communal violence. Before we do so we would like to throw some light on representation of Muslims in the police force and communal situation in different states. For example in Kerala Muslims are 24.7 per cent of population and their representation in the state police is 12.96 per cent. Thus their presence in police is half their presence in the state population. Yet, Kerala is, by and large, free of communal violence.
Similarly, in Tamil Nadu Muslim constitute 5.46 per cent of state population and Muslims are just 0.11 in the police force and Tamil Nadu too, is not communally sensitive pace and barring few riots, it has been by and large free of communal violence. But then in Maharashtra Muslims are 10.60 per cent in population and their presence in police is 4.71 per cent. But Maharashtra witnesses communal violence repeatedly and several parts of Maharashtra are communally sensitive.
In Uttar Pradesh Muslims are 18.50 per cent and their presence in police is only 4.24 per cent and who does not know how sensitive several parts of U.P. were ultra sensitive until yesterday. Yet today both U.P. and Bihar (in Bihar too Muslims are just 5.4 per cent in the police force as against their population of 16.53 per cent) are free of communal violence for last few years.
Thus Parveen Swami is right in asserting that one should not think that Muslim presence in police force will ensure communal violence free state. In fact no one maintains that presence of Muslims in adequate numbers in police force by itself can ever ensure riot-free society. What is maintained, and Mr. Swami also accepts it, is that proper presence of Muslims in police force would lead, and I would like to emphasise not entirely, but to some extent, proper handling of communal riot and post-communal-riot situation. A prejudiced police force can further aggravate the situation after out-break of communal violence and also can implicate more and more number of innocent Muslims on false charges of rioting, as often happens.
Let us remember that communalism and communal violence are fundamentally political phenomenon. Even if there is zero representation of Muslims in police force but political situation is congenial to communal harmony, there will be no outbursts of communal violence. And, on the other and, even if there is over-representation of Muslims in the police force, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be no communal violence. In Andhra Pradesh Muslim presence in police force is 13.25 per cent as against their population of 9.17 per cent and yet Hyderabad area is communally quite sensitive and frequent communal riots take place.
Where there is political determination not to have communal violence, there will be none, even if police is highly prejudicial to Muslims and Muslim presence in police force is minimal. One has to carefully study the political situation in order to understand dynamics of communal violence.
It is also, important to understand that in India we have no professional policing. Even if it is our ideal, reality is far from the ideal. Our society is divided vertically in caste hierarchy and horizontally in religious, regional and linguistic communities. Thus we all are carriers of caste, communal, regional and linguistic prejudices. Apart from our society, even our education system inculcate these prejudices in us. And our police being part of our society and having been educated in the same educational system cannot be free of these prejudices.
I have been to various institutions of police training and have examined there training system, there is nothing in it that can free the policemen of these socially acquired prejudices. Thus more often than not, a policeman becomes a Hindu or a Gujarati or Maharashtrian, a Brahmin or Rajput when there are caste, communal or linguistic clashes and often unabashedly so. When I was interviewing a police constable in Deonar, a Mumbai suburb during 1992-93 riots, he told me take off my police uniform and I am a Shivsainik at heart. It did not surprise me. The police behaviour was highly partisan during Mumbai riots.
Let alone, state police force (this category generally includes constabulary, sub-inspectors and inspectors) even IPS people are often not free of communal and upper caste prejudices. One should not treat the police force as homogenous one. The state recruits carry more raw prejudices both caste and communal whereas IPS force tends to be more sophisticated.
Undoubtedly there are secular and honest officers and also those who are secular but yet politically ambitious or aspiring to better and more lucrative posts. Such officers are equally dangerous though they may not be communal or casteist by inclination. Politicians use police officers for their own political purposes. Those police officers who do not give in to political demands are dumped into obscure posting rendering them quite ineffective.
It is well-known fact that there will be no communal violence, if it does not suit politicians in their power game. Both U.P. and Bihar were inflammable states for decades. The battle for partition was also fought mainly in these two states in north India. This legacy continued for decades after partition. But the scenario dramatically changed after implementation of Mandal Commission. The backward caste Hindus now entered into alliance with Muslims in U.P. and Bihar, in order to seize political power from upper caste Hindus. Thus MY (Muslim and Yadav) alliance created different compulsions. In both the states Yadav chief ministers curbed communal violence with determination lest they loose Muslim votes.
Nitish Kumar, the present Bihar chief Minister though an NDA ally and part of BJP communal outfit, is pursuing Œsecular politics’ in his own political interests. He is also trying to win over Muslim votes for his survival. He is competing with Lalu Prasad in luring Muslims. He is ensuring that no communal violence occurs in Bihar. Not only that he demanded that the guilty of Bhagalpur communal riots (of 1989) be punished and Muslims given compensation.
He is even justifying the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement that Muslims should get due share in development funds though BJP rocked the Parliament on this issue and did not allow it to function. It also threatened to launch a week -long agitation. But they are keeping quiet on Nitish Kumar’s opposite viewpoint. They know in Bihar they cannot maintain coalition in power without such tactics. They even justified Nitish Kumar’s stand. BJP pursued hard Hindutva policies in order to promote its own upper caste and middle caste Hindu vote bank.
Thus it will be seen that whole issue of communal violence is very complex one. We need secular police force not because it is the only effective way of fighting communal violence; even otherwise we need ideally a secular and professional police force. But problem again is political. Most of our politicians misuse police for their partisan politics and do not want professional and autonomous police force. It suits them to have casteist and communal police servile to their needs.
In order to have professional political force, they must be thoroughly grounded in secular values and constitutional spirit, something hardly any politician wants. An autonomous police force is also double-edged sword. Autonomy can be effective only if police is really professionally trained and is freed from all prejudices. But ridden with these prejudices an autonomous force can be more dangerous for religious and linguistic minorities.
Also representation of minorities in police is highly desirable as Swami also points out in his article. Not to prevent communal violence as simple solution but to give justice to minorities and also to reduce gravity of communal violence, if it breaks out for political reasons. A secular police may not be able to prevent communal violence but can certain reduce its gravity with even-handed handling. And presence of minorities will certainly help in this respect. Post-riot investigations will also become more just.
Despite all political factors, a secular and representative police force (representative of minorities) is highly desirable.
-----------------------------------
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
|
