Daily Times

The crime rate in Punjab province of Pakistan has registered a sharp increase of 10.2 percent in 2011 as compared to 2010. Promising to do something about it, the new Inspector General of Police, Muhammad Habib-ur-Rehman on assuming charge early this year, called upon his officers to adopt ‘aggressive’ policing rather than routine policing. This, he believes, would help improve the thana (police station) culture, reverse the negative image of the Punjab police and reinvigorate its officers.

The police chief has reportedly come up with a two-pronged strategy for tackling challenges — fighting crime and corruption across the department while simultaneously ensuring justice at the grassroots level. Going by media reports, aggressive policing forms part of the first prong and includes zero tolerance for corruption, a zealous hunt for criminals ‘at any cost’, and long work hours (he himself puts in 17 hours) in order to remain accessible to people at all times.

The strategy at first sounds impressive. Fighting crime, stopping violence and maintaining order is the foremost duty of the police; an active push by the police chief to improve performance is commendable and indeed the need of the hour. On digging deeper, however, the approach of aggressive policing is worrisome. Solutions to tackling crime are needed but these must be found within the constitutional framework of a society wedded to democracy. Criminals must be caught not hunted — ‘caught at any cost’ cannot be at the cost of complete disregard for constitutional and statutory frameworks. No action of the police can be outside the boundaries of the law, and if IG Rehman clarified that this was indeed his stand, then the unease triggered by his statement would be mitigated to some extent.

Such an approach is bound to push the police to take the law into their own hands, which is not uncommon in the country. This is evidenced by the numerous cases of extra-legal killings, custodial violence and rape and routine harassment of the citizenry at large. Reports have established well how rampant these are across the country. The latest Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Report 2011 in fact states that a police encounter occurred every 34 hours last year. The report goes on to highlight several other cases of staged encounters and torture in custody, including those where senior officers have been held guilty. Another recent study by several NGOs has reported that 90 percent of detainees in Pakistan are victims of custodial torture.

Several factors are responsible for the recourse to custodial deaths, violence and extrajudicial killings. Important among these is the approach and support of the police leadership to such measures. The conviction rate of police officers for excesses committed is very low. Internal accountability mechanisms do not inspire much confidence among the public whereas external oversight bodies such as those implemented under the Police Order 2002 remain dysfunctional. Against this, an endorsement of catching criminals at any cost only reinforces the heavy reliance on lethal force and extrajudicial methods.

Moreover, this approach is also at odds with IG Rehman’s second prong — ‘ensuring justice at the grassroots’. First, it must be noted that it is not the police’s duty to provide justice. The foremost role of the police is to prevent, detect and investigate crime and produce the criminals before a court of law. Justice is to be provided by the courts, not by the police.

If, by this statement, the IG meant to convey the desire to make the police more helpful and cooperative at the grassroots, this too is likely to be harmed by aggressive policing. Already, corruption in the force is very high. Early this year, the Supreme Court pulled up the Punjab police for failing to submit challans of all under-investigation cases to the courts and repeatedly extending judicial remand through fake signatures of a magistrate. Already, getting a crime registered is an arduous task in itself. Anyone who has ever tried registering an FIR with the police will bear out the fact that despite desperate efforts by complainants, only a small proportion of crimes ever get registered. In a recent gang rape of a 13-year-old in March 2012 in Rawalpindi, it took a month for the police to finally register the case. An inquiry report submitted by the Special Investigation Team held several officers responsible for first refusing to register the complaint despite medical examination confirming the crime and then tampering with daily diary records to conceal the offence.

Under pressure to show a declining crime rate, aggressive policing is only likely to encourage such malpractices, and further alienate the masses. After all, aggressive but inefficient policing is the only form of policing familiar to citizens. That has not helped in reducing crime. There is deep distrust of, and dissatisfaction with, even the day-to-day performance of the police, let alone their ability to curb serious crime or tackle terrorism.

The truth is that the police need the cooperation of the public to tackle crime. They need to be part of the community rather than apart in order to understand the social tensions, and become aware of crime patterns. Only then will they be able to meet the expectations of people and gain their trust.

Aggressive policing is only a short cut. It will only lead to greater alienation of the public. Policing by coercion has failed to win the confidence of the public or yield results. Maybe, it is time to give policing by consent a chance.

Navaz Kotwal is Coordinator, Police Reforms Programme and Devyani Srivastava is Consultant, Police Reforms Programme of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. They can be contacted at navaz.uno@gmail.com; devyani@humanrightsinitiative.org