WHERE THEIR LOYALTIES LIE...

THE primary duty of the police is to maintain order which would include
enforcing the law and the prevention and detection ofcrime. The police ought to be
concerned about the interests ofthe general public, the standard of the law, the
administration of justice and the security parameters that ensure it. Loyalty is the
foundation on which the police organisation is built up. Loyalty, would mean steadfast
adherence to what is legal and the law as the word `loyalty' originates from the Latin
lex and legalis.Policing, as a profession in a democracy, denotes fidelity to the
sovereignty of the people and necessitates upholding the law of the country, keeping up
the orderly life of the common man and safeguarding peace and security.

This is where the police differ from private armies. Disaster strikes when the
police function as the private armies of the ruling political party or any influential
member of society. The police in India have fallen into this quagmire, its vitality and
profesionalism pushed to the background.

Loyalty is of two kinds. One is pure and simple fidelity to the master. The
other owes its allegiance to certain ideals and principles. This implies allegiance
to one's duties, responsibilities, objectives, profession and the chosen path of life.
This commitment raises their loyalty to the status of a mission. The loyalty needed in a
profession like that of the police is of elevated nature and it bestows the qualities of
nobility and dignity on the organisation. It lifts the police above factional interests and
gives them a cosmopolitan vitality. The strength and the trust born out of this superior
form of loyalty stand the police force in good stead in its hour of risk and crisis.

It is tragic that the Indian police prefer to trade this characteristic for
trivial and ephemeral benefits. The trend has spread like wildfire to ravage the
institution. The genesis lies in the promotion of career prospects and other perks dumb
loyalty brings to individuals. Personal loyalty to political masters takes some people to
the top, tempting others to follow suit.

The models created a pattern and the pattern became a part of the system in a
setup where individuality and orginality are not sacred. The real threat lies in the
possibility of this tendency coming to be accepted as the true character of the police.
This may not take long to happen if the present goings on are any indication.

The malady is not limited to a particular state or unit. There can be hope of
remedy if there is at least one example of the right model. But none seems to be
available. Isolated attempts to tread the right path are seen as deviations from the
mainstream. This is the beginning of the atrophy of the Indian police. How far the
degeneration has spread is evident from the way some important criminal cases of
political significance have been handled. A criminal case warrants professional loyalty
in its investigation to bring the culprits to book. The political status of the accused and the
fall-out are irrelevant to the process of investigation.

The misconceptions about loyalty with a slant in favour of the political

masters and other powerful influence-pedlars have clouded this vital aspect of
policing. With the result, the rule of law has suffered and the administration of
justice is crippled. The damage already done to the country's public life cannot be
repaired until the police are brought back on the rails of loyalty to their profession.

The police, whether it is the Special Protection Group, the Intelligence

Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing or the Central Bureau of Investigation,
survive the transient political masters and their political groups in power. Their
relevance to the country is more abiding than that of the politicians in power. In the
circumstances, the police ought not to be subservient to the political masters
whose future is unpredictable. The police going loyal to transient political interests
certainly will damage and debase the system itself.
 It is a common practice in some States to change key officers when a new
dispensation takes over the rule. A recent example is from Tamil Nadu. And this is not
an isolated case. It reflects the attitude of the political leadership towards the
professional loyalties of the police. Public opinion about the professional loyalty of the
police is rather low.

Politicians believe that all those in the police are commodities that can be
bought and ``loyal'' policemen to make a substantial difference to their political
fortunes. Hence the mad rush to place favourite police officers in key positions.
Thus politicians exploit the weakness of the organisation. The culprit here is the
perverted loyalties of the police. What is termed as political interference is patently the
making of the police by their personal loyalties.

The intelligence unit is the most abused section and its chief is the most
willing tool. Intelligence officers have a responsibility to their organisational
objectives and they ought to work towards meeting their objectives. But misplaced
loyalties restrict the scope of the intelligence units which are seen as the lackeys of
the ruling parties and their leaders. The usefulness of the intelligence units as
political tools is so pronounced in India that they are brought under the direct
control of the Chief Executive of the Government from the traditional Home
Department and the chiefs are the main advisers of the Chief Executive, head and
shoulders above even the Chief Secretaries in States and the Cabinet Secretary at the
Centre.

This importance is a reward for the lengths to which these officers would
go risking their personal and career safety and indulge in illegal acts to oblige the
political masters. Telephone tapping and shadowing political rivals of the ruling party
leaders are only minor prevarications these loyal police officers indulge in to keep
themselves in the good books of their political masters.
 Assessing the political trends and suitability of candidates in different
constituencies during elections and reporting the activities of politicians within and
outside the ruling party are now wrongly seen as legitimate functions of the
intelligence units.

Mr. Chandra Sekhar, former Prime Minister, in response to a question on

the Jain hawala case during the 11th Lok Sabha election campaign, said the
investigation of corruption cases was the job of a Police Inspector and not that of a
Minister. That answer would be right in an ideal situation where the police function
professionally, with their loyalty fixed to their duties. It has no relevance in a
situation where policemen are loyal to individuals or groups in power. The police
being the executive edge of the administration, their loyalties make all the difference to
the quality of administration.

Factional loyalties have the singular potentiallity of eroding fairness and

impartiality. They make professional loyalty seem meaningless. A mature and sober
political leadership can set right the fractured loyalties of the police organisation. In this
context, judicial activism, in a periodical review of the progress of investigation of
some cases of national importance, is a welcome step although in normal
circumstances such a judicial review would have amounted to interference in the
independent functioning of the investigating authority.

The duty of providing the right guidance and direction to the police lies with
the political leadership. Ironically, the police force has become an object of ridicule
by being asked to investigate certain affairs of the politicians with whom its absolute
loyalty lies and who twist policemen around their little fingers.